Auto negligence; McGuire v Rabaut; Comparative fault; MCL 600.2959; Laier v Kitchen

The court held that the trial court erred by denying summary disposition because the record evidence established plaintiff was more than 50% at fault for the collision as a matter of law. Plaintiff drove eastbound and collided with the rear of a truck that was backing from a driveway. Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing video evidence and expert reconstruction showed plaintiff had ample time to perceive the hazard and avoid impact. Plaintiff presented arguments about right-of-way, lighting, and potential negligence by the driver and employer, but did not submit his own deposition testimony or an affidavit explaining his actions. The trial court denied the motion as a “jury call.” On appeal, the court reiterated that once a moving party supports a summary disposition motion, the nonmoving party may not rest on allegations and must submit documentary evidence setting forth specific facts to show a genuine issue for trial. It held plaintiff failed that burden because the surveillance video showed two vehicles passed the truck without incident, plaintiff then entered the frame and made “no effort to slow down or turn to avoid colliding,” and another vehicle behind plaintiff slowed and stopped, demonstrating the hazard was visible. The court applied comparative fault principles and emphasized that a favored driver cannot proceed blindly, noting a favored driver “is not permitted to lower his head, close his eyes, and charge blindly through intersections on the theory that such is his ‘right,’” and that the duty to act arises when observations “reveal, or should reveal to the reasonably prudent man, an impending danger.” The court also relied on the driver’s deposition testimony that plaintiff apologized and admitted distraction, and on defendants’ expert’s conclusion that plaintiff’s headlights were visible for several seconds, there was no braking or steering indicated, and there was “more than sufficient time and distance” to perceive and brake normally to avoid collision. Plaintiff offered only narrative criticism of the expert and hearsay objections without countervailing admissible evidence or a competing expert affidavit, and the court held conjecture and speculation are insufficient. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s theory that dumpster placement made the employer negligent, concluding it was not foreseeable that placement would cause the harm where plaintiff’s inattentiveness was the operative cause. Reversed and remanded.