Auto negligence; Pedestrian accident; Summary disposition; MCR 2.116(C)(10); Untimely supplemental response; MCR 2.116(G)(1); Adjournment; MCR 2.503; Basic speed law; MCL 257.627; Sudden-emergency doctrine; Owner liability; MCL 257.401

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider plaintiff’s tardy response and did not err by granting defendants summary disposition in this pedestrian-injury negligence action. Thirteen-year-old RS was struck by defendant-driver’s pickup after cutting across the street between stopped vehicles instead of using a crosswalk. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition without considering plaintiff’s second response. On appeal, the court first found the trial court acted within its discretion because plaintiff filed the second response after the deadline, did not properly move to adjourn or seek leave to file a supplemental brief, and did not explain why the later arguments could not have been included in the timely response. The court next found no genuine issue of material fact as to negligence. The evidence showed defendant was driving under the assumed 25-mph limit, had just completed a left turn, and “slamm[ed] on the brakes” when RS suddenly entered her lane. The court also concluded the sudden-emergency doctrine applied because the hazard was “unsuspected,” and defendant had no meaningful time to react. The court emphasized that “[t]he law expects prudence, not perfection,” and because the driver was not negligent, defendant-owner could not be liable. Affirmed.