Auto negligence wrongful death action; MCL 600.2922; Hill v Sears, Roebuck & Co; Negligence; Duty of reasonable care; MCL 600.2922; City of Kalamazoo v Priest; Sudden-emergency doctrine; MCL 257.627(1); White v Taylor Distrib Co, Inc; Comparative fault; 50% bar; MCL 500.3135(2)(b); Rodriguez v Solar of MI, Inc; Comparative negligence allocation; MCL 600.6304; Zaremba Equip, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co

The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed on both defendant’s negligence and the decedent’s comparative fault, so summary disposition for defendant was improper and the case had to be vacated and remanded. Plaintiff, as personal representative of the decedent’s estate, alleged wrongful death after defendant’s vehicle struck the decedent as he crossed a two-lane road at night from his home toward a nearby market. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant, finding the case a “classic” sudden emergency and concluding the decedent was more than fifty percent at fault under MCL 500.3135(2)(b). On appeal, the court reiterated that drivers must “maintain a reasonable and proper lookout” and “see what is plainly there to be seen,” and that once duty is established, breach and proximate cause are generally jury questions. It emphasized eyewitness testimony that they watched the decedent walk from his home, down the driveway, and nearly across both lanes over several seconds, together with discrepancies in defendant’s and his passenger’s accounts about what they saw, whether there was time to react, where the body came to rest, and whether brakes were applied. Given this record, a jury could find defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and that the sudden-emergency doctrine did not apply. The court further held that proximate cause and comparative fault, including whether the decedent exceeded the fifty percent bar, are issues for the trier of fact where reasonable minds could differ, so summary disposition was improper.