Auto negligence; Sudden-emergency defense; White v Taylor Distrib Co; Presumption of negligence in a rear-end collision case (MCL 257.402(a))

Holding that defendant-McConnaughey did not show he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on his sudden-emergency defense, the court reversed summary disposition for him and remanded. This auto negligence case arose from a rear-end collision. MCL 257.402(a) “establishes a presumption of negligence in a rear-end collision case[.]” In support of his summary disposition motion, “defendant offered his affidavit and the invoice from the repair shop” that examined his vehicle after the collision, “but that did not provide the necessary ‘clear, positive, and credible evidence’ to demonstrate that [he] was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . Defendant’s affidavit opined that he ‘was unable to stop the vehicle due to an unexpected mechanical failure.’ [His] conclusory belief to that effect, however, is insufficient in itself to support his” summary disposition motion. The court noted that he did not “purport to specify exactly what that ‘unexpected mechanical failure’ was, in his view. Taken together and on their face, the affidavit and invoice” showed that he “applied his brakes before the collision but they failed to stop his vehicle, and that the drive shaft on [his] vehicle was found to be damaged after the accident. To the extent [his] claimed mechanical failure was of his vehicle’s brakes, there is nothing in the evidence presented to support that conclusion; the invoice from the repair shop reflects no such failure, nor can mechanical failure simply be assumed from the mere fact that defendant says he applied his brakes but still hit plaintiff. And to the extent defendant’s claimed mechanical failure was of his vehicle’s drive shaft, the evidence provides nothing to connect the damage to that drive shaft to his vehicle’s failure to stop.” Thus, the court concluded his offered evidence was inadequate to support his sudden emergency claim. It found that the trial court erred in “looking past these deficiencies in defendant’s proofs and focusing instead on plaintiff’s evidentiary offerings (or lack thereof) in response.” By law, defendant “was presumed negligent.” He did not present “evidence that would, even unopposed, be adequate to rebut his presumed negligence and demonstrate that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the sudden-emergency doctrine.” Plaintiff’s failure to produce further evidence in response to his evidence did not make his motion any more viable.