Governmental immunity; Motor vehicle exception; Gross negligence; Liability; Comparative fault; MCL 500.3135(2)(b); People v Pace; Motorist’s obligation toward pedestrians; Huggins v Scripter; Braxton v Gazdecki

The court held that under the undisputed facts, no reasonable juror could conclude that defendant-Green (bus driver) was more at fault than plaintiff (pedestrian), “as MCL 500.3135(2)(b) requires for plaintiff’s claim to succeed.” Thus, the trial court erred in denying summary disposition, and the court reversed and remanded. The “dispositive evidence is not contested testimony or disputed inferences—it is a multi-angle video that both sides agree is a complete account of the accident. The footage incontrovertibly shows plaintiff opening his driver-side door directly into traffic, causing it to collide with the municipal defendant’s bus, which was traveling in its lane at the moment of impact.” Plaintiff contended that his claims against defendant-City fell within the motor vehicle exception. As to Green, plaintiff invoked MCL 691.1407(2). Under Pace, “the mere fact of an accident is not, in and of itself, proof of actionable negligence; a plaintiff must still identify actually negligent conduct to recover in tort.” The court concluded “that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that plaintiff was less negligent than defendants in light of the indisputable video evidence. Plaintiff stood on the side of a busy, five-lane highway in Detroit. Seconds earlier, he had scrambled across the roadway, giving Green every reason to think he was aware of oncoming traffic. He then positioned himself tight against his vehicle in the parallel parking space, behaving like someone who was aware of the traffic conditions. Yet he inexplicably opened his car door into traffic.” The court found that in “this, plaintiff acted similarly to the five-year-old decedent in Braxton, who 'darted from the curb, ran across the street with his head down,' and was struck by an automobile.” The court concluded that in “similar fashion, while Green had a general responsibility to operate the bus in a reasonably safe fashion in light of plaintiff’s presence, he was not obliged to anticipate that plaintiff would suddenly swing his car door into traffic—especially when plaintiff’s prior conduct indicated an awareness of traffic conditions. Despite this video record, plaintiff attempts to recast the accident as defendants’ fault.” However, the court found that “the ‘other proofs’ defendants submitted—most notably, the multi-angle video recording—demonstrate that no reasonable factfinder could conclude plaintiff was less negligent than defendants. As in Huggins, plaintiff’s own conduct so plainly exceeded any arguable negligence by defendants that the case cannot proceed to a jury under MCL 500.3135(2)(b). Because the video evidence leaves no room for reasonable dispute, the trial court was required to grant summary disposition at least as to plaintiff’s counts I and II.”