e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 84848
Opinion Date : 12/15/2025
e-Journal Date : 01/05/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Christiansen v. Armbrustmacher
Practice Area(s) : Negligence & Intentional Tort
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Trebilock, Patel, and Wallace
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Auto negligence; Comparative fault exceeding 50%; MCL 500.3135(2); Lamp v Reynolds; Summary disposition under No-Fault Act; MCR 2.116(C)(10); Maiden v Rozwood; Failure to signal left turn; MCL 257.648(1); McDuffie v Neal

Summary

The court held that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether defendants were more than 50% at fault for the motorcycle accident, so it vacated and remanded. Plaintiff was injured when he attempted to pass defendant’s flat-bed truck at an intersection as the truck slowed to make a left turn, and the collision occurred when the truck turned left across plaintiff’s path. The trial court concluded that plaintiff was more than 50% at fault as a matter of law based on speeding, attempting to pass, and allegedly knowing the truck was slowing to turn, and therefore barred from recovery under the no-fault comparative-fault provision. On appeal, the court emphasized that comparative negligence is ordinarily a jury question and that summary disposition is improper unless no reasonable juror could find the defendant more at fault. The panel explained that, while evidence supported an inference that plaintiff acted negligently by speeding and attempting to pass, the record also supported a contrary inference that defendant failed to ensure the turn could be made safely and failed to signal the left turn with functioning lights. Multiple witnesses did not observe a left-turn signal, defendant acknowledged at the scene that the hi-lo’s lights were not working, and post-accident inspection showed the lights were loose or disconnected. The court concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, reasonable minds could differ as to which driver bore greater responsibility for the crash, and therefore the statutory bar for being more than 50% at fault could not be decided as a matter of law. Because these factual disputes precluded summary disposition, the judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Full PDF Opinion