Action seeking damages for a collision with a public bus; Governmental immunity; The motor-vehicle exception; MCL 691.1405; Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth for Reg’l Transp; Duty breach; Causation; MCL 500.3135(1); Comparative negligence; MCL 500.3135(2); The gross negligence exception for government employees; MCL 691.1407(2); MCL 691.1407(8)(a); Tarlea v Crabtree; Evidence of ordinary negligence; Maiden v Rozwood; No-fault benefits; Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA)

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendants-transportation authority’s (CATA) and bus driver’s (Rodgers) motion for summary disposition of plaintiffs’ gross negligence claim against Rodgers and no-fault claim against CATA, but properly denied their motion as to plaintiffs’ claim against CATA under the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity. Plaintiffs sued defendants for injuries they sustained when their motorcycle was struck by one of CATA’s buses, which was driven by Rodgers. The trial court denied defendants’ motion for summary disposition. On appeal, the court agreed with defendants that the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim against Rodgers, but concluded that it properly refused to dismiss plaintiffs’ negligence claim against CATA. As to CATA, the court noted that plaintiff-White’s testimony supported that “Rodgers caused the collision, so there [remained] a question of fact as to this issue. Likewise, if a jury believe[d] White’s testimony, it could readily conclude that plaintiffs were not more than 50% at fault for the collision.” Further, a jury could find based on White’s testimony “that Rodgers breached his duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care and caution in his operation of the bus by failing to see plaintiffs’ motorcycle in the intersection before turning.” As to the claim against Rodgers, his “conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence.” While the court agreed “with the trial court that a jury could conclude that Rodgers ‘just didn’t see’ the motorcycle that ‘was right there,’ that would only support that [he] was negligent, and ordinary negligence is not enough to establish a question of fact as to gross negligence.” Finally, the court agreed with defendants that the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim for no-fault benefits. “When defendants asked plaintiffs at their depositions to identify any no-fault benefits that CATA had refused to pay, neither plaintiff could identify any. So, defendants sensibly moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiffs could not establish their claim for unpaid no-fault benefits, citing plaintiffs’ deposition testimonies.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.