Automobile negligence; Left-lane travel; MCL 257.634(1) & (2); Statutory violation; Duty to yield; MCL 257.650(1); Comparative negligence; MCL 500.3135(2)(b); Proximate cause; Churukian v La Gest; DePriest v Kooiman

The court held that plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that defendant breached a duty or proximately caused the collision where defendant was lawfully traveling in the left lane and plaintiff failed to yield to oncoming traffic before entering the highway. Plaintiff stopped at a stop sign on Clarion Road and attempted to turn left onto US 131, crossing in front of defendant’s vehicle traveling northbound in the left lane. She argued that defendant was negligent because MCL 257.634(1) generally requires motorists to use the right-hand lane unless passing. The court determined, however, that MCL 257.634(2) supplied an applicable exception. The undisputed evidence showed another vehicle traveling in the right-hand northbound lane alongside defendant. Thus, “defendant was entitled to this exception” permitting travel in the left lane when the lanes are occupied by vehicles moving in substantially continuous traffic. The court also rejected plaintiff’s contention that she fulfilled her duty merely by stopping and looking in both directions. As the subordinate driver attempting a left turn, she was required by MCL 257.650(1) to yield to approaching traffic constituting an immediate hazard. Like the subordinate driver in Churukian, plaintiff incorrectly judged whether she had sufficient time to complete her turn. Although negligence and comparative fault generally present jury questions, the court noted that “defendant cannot be the proximate cause of an accident occasioned by a subordinate driver’s entry onto the highway where the driver with the right of way could not have avoided the accident.” Viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, she breached her statutory duty to yield to both lanes of oncoming traffic and failed to present evidence creating a factual issue that any breach by defendant proximately caused the collision. Affirmed.