School bus-student accident; Governmental immunity; Employee immunity; Gross negligence exception (MCL 691.1407(2)(c)); Beals v Michigan; M Civ JI 10.07 (Conduct Required for Safety of Child); Proximate cause; Ray v Swager; Motor vehicle exception (MCL 691.1405); MCL 257.648(1) (duty to ensure that a turn can be executed safely before turning); Percentage of fault; MCL 500.3135(2)(b); MCL 600.2959; Lower standard of care for minors; Significance of the student being 7 years old

The court held that factual disputes existed as to whether the gross negligence and motor vehicle exceptions to governmental immunity applied, and that the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that defendant-school bus driver (McPharlin) was not the proximate cause of a student’s (ABC) injuries. Thus, it reversed summary disposition for McPharlin and defendant-school district, and remanded. Plaintiffs, ABC’s parents, filed this action after he was struck by McPharlin’s bus while riding his bicycle alongside it after he got off the bus. As to governmental immunity for McPharlin, the court reviewed MCL 691.1407(2)(c) and concluded that the record showed a factual dispute as to whether she “acted with gross negligence.” Based on her statements at the accident scene, she “observed ABC on his bike at some point as she continued on her route after dropping him off. She also remarked that he must have thought she was going to continue driving straight on Harding Avenue, as she normally did, instead of turning left on Schippell Street. She testified that she checked her mirrors before she turned and did not see ABC on his bike, but plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from their traffic crash reconstruction expert . . . stating that McPharlin would have been able to see ABC in the roadway if she had used her mirrors.” Citing M Civ JI 10.07, the court noted that because she “was aware that ABC was riding his bicycle in the area, and was following the bus, she was required to be vigilant about him.” It further determined that “a reasonable jury could conclude that McPharlin’s conduct was the proximate cause of ABC’s injuries.” As to the school district and the MCL 691.1405 exception, “under MCL 257.648(1), McPharlin had a duty to ensure that she could execute her turn safely before she turned the bus.” And a reasonable fact-finder could find that she “breached her duty to determine whether she could safely turn the bus.” Finally, the court held that “the trial court erred by determining that a reasonable jury could not conclude that McPharlin was more at fault than ABC in causing his injuries.” It noted that because “ABC was seven years old when the accident occurred, he was on the ‘dividing line’ in Michigan regarding his possible negligence.”