e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 84543
Opinion Date : 10/16/2025
e-Journal Date : 10/29/2025
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Kline v. Pilaczynski
Practice Area(s) : Negligence & Intentional Tort
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Swartzle, Ackerman, and Trebilcock
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Auto negligence; Duty breach; Causation; Rowland v City of Detroit; Right-of-way & duty to yield; MCL 257.652; Churukian v La Gest; Statutory-violation theory (negligence per se); Proximate cause; Reckless driving; MCL 257.626; Randall v Michigan High Sch Athletic Ass’n

Summary

Holding that plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on breach or causation where defendant-Pilaczynski had the right-of-way and the driver of the van in which plaintiff was a passenger admittedly ran the stop sign, the court affirmed summary disposition for Pilaczynski. The crash occurred at 4:15 am when the van’s driver (defendant-Hilden) drove through a stop sign and was struck by Pilaczynski, who was traveling with the right-of-way. Police recorded Hilden’s admissions that he was “intentionally running stop signs” and “turning off his headlights” at the intersections, and vehicle data showed Pilaczynski was not speeding. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that a jury question existed, explaining that a movant may prevail by showing the nonmovant’s proof is insufficient on an essential element, and “‘[t]he mere fact of an accident is not, in and of itself, proof of actionable negligence.’” The court also rejected plaintiff’s theory that Pilaczynski’s violation of his Kentucky graduated-permit restrictions or MCL 257.626 (reckless driving) established negligence per se. Even if a statutory violation could create a presumption, “‘a violation of a statute does not establish negligence as a matter of law unless the violation is shown to be a proximate cause of the accident,’” and plaintiff offered no causal link. Her reliance on purported disputes about whether Hilden’s headlights were on or whether he was speeding was immaterial because Pilaczynski “had the right-of-way” and “Hilden faced a stop sign,” so no duty to yield arose. Finally, an affidavit recounting Pilaczynski’s post-accident apology did not create a triable issue given the undisputed record showing attentiveness and right-of-way on his part and the stop-sign violation by Hilden.

Full PDF Opinion