Injuries while riding on a city bus; Governmental immunity; MCL 691.1407(1); Bernardoni v City of Saginaw; The motor-vehicle exception; MCL 691.1405; A driver’s duty; City of Kalamazoo v Priest; Principle that evidence of violation of a penal statute creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence; Klanseck v Anderson Sales & Serv, Inc; Failure to maintain an “assured clear distance”; MCL 257.627(1); Winslow v. Veterans of Foreign Wars Nat’l Home; Proximate cause; MCL 691.1407(2)(c)

Holding that there were genuine issues of material fact whether defendant-bus driver negligently operated defendant-city’s bus, and whether the driver’s negligent operation of the bus was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the city’s motion for summary disposition. Plaintiffs sued defendants for injuries they sustained when the bus on which they were riding was involved in a collision with another vehicle that subsequently fled the scene. The trial court denied the city’s motion for summary disposition, finding “[r]easonable minds could differ as to whether the bus driver was negligent such that the accident could have been avoided if she was driving the speed limit. So the exception to governmental immunity applies there.” On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that it was entitled to governmental immunity and the motor-vehicle exception was inapplicable. The driver’s “admission to violating the basic speed laws establishes a prima facie case from which a jury may infer that she acted negligently.” In addition, she “admitted that she took no evasive action to attempt to avoid the collision” and “conceded that the accident occurred during rush hour, on a busy route, and that she did not keep a safe distance between the bus and the SUV in front of the bus.” Viewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, we conclude that there are material questions of fact whether [the driver] negligently operated the city’s bus.” The driver also admitted she “was driving at least 5 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, she took no evasive action to attempt to avoid the collision, and she did not maintain an assured, clear distance ahead while driving during rush hour on a busy route. The collision that resulted is the kind of injury that such actions produce.” As such, there were “genuine issues of fact regarding whether [the driver’s] conduct was a proximate cause of the accident.”