Governmental immunity; Gross negligence; MCL 691.1407(2); MCL 691.1407(8)(a); MCR 2.116(C)(7); Ambulance collision; Emergency vehicle exemptions in the Michigan Vehicle Code; MCL 257.603(3) & (4); Accident reconstruction evidence

The court held that the trial court properly denied defendant-paramedic’s (Baugh) renewed motion for summary disposition because genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether his ambulance operation amounted to gross negligence. Plaintiff-estate alleged that defendant was grossly negligent when the ambulance he was driving was struck in an intersection and rolled over while transporting the decedent, who later died. On appeal, the court noted that the earlier appeal had described the “evidence [as] rife with discrepancies,” and held that many of those factual disputes still affected the gross-negligence claim. The court reasoned that the record created factual disputes about “whether the ambulance lights were engaged, the speed of the ambulance, and whether Baugh ensured the intersection was clear before proceeding through it.” Although defendants relied on their expert’s conclusion that the ambulance was traveling only 22 to 24 mph, plaintiff’s expert disputed the assumptions behind that analysis, and the court held that such disputes were “for a trier of fact to consider.” The court also held that the emergency-vehicle provisions did not require summary disposition because disputed facts remained about whether the ambulance lights were activated, whether defendant exceeded the speed limit, and whether he slowed “as necessary for safe operation.” Affirmed.