The Michigan Court of Appeals in Estate of Aaron Reid v ThomasWalker, No. 328587, reversed the circuit court’s summary disposition ruling as to one defendant and affirmed as to two others in an appeal involving the death of bicyclist. The dissenting judge, Judge Peter O’Connell wrote a dissenting opinion affirming the entire circuit court’s opinion.
FACTS:
Several hours
before dawn on a November morning, Aaron Reid rode his bicycle along the right
side of northbound Whitmore Lake Road, pedaling with the flow of traffic. A
Ford Truck, driven by Thomas Walker and heading north saw Reid traveling from
left to right across the road. He hit his brakes and swerved to the left and
struck Reid’s bike with the right front of his truck.
Reid was thrown on
the hood of the truck, slid off, landing in the middle of the road. Defendants
Willis and Voight came upon the scene, moved to avoid the truck in the middle
of the road and ran over Reid, who was declared dead at the scene.
Prior to the
accident, 19-year-old Reid and his two friends met to ride their bikes and
drink alcohol. According to friend Jordan Salmi’s deposition, from about 1:00
a.m. to 5:00 a.m., they shared a fifth of alcohol and rode their bikes on
“state land,” after which they went to McDonald’s.
Livingston County
Sherriff Deputy Brad Neff conducted a crash scene investigation concluding that
Reid caused the accident because he was wearing dark clothing, there were no
reflectors on his bike and his blood alcohol level at the time of the accident
was .07.
Reid's estate
filed a six-count complaint against the defendants, asserting claims of
negligence and wrongful death. Defendants Walker, Willis and Voight moved for
summary disposition under MCR 2.116 (C)(10) asserting they couldn’t be found
liable for the accident because Reid was more than 50% at fault. Reid alleged
that a question of fact existed because Walker admitted he was speeding and had
a nonfunctioning headlight, and that Willis and Voight were traveling too fast
and did not act with proper caution when approaching the area.
The trial court granted summary
disposition to the defendants, stating that it was impossible to conclude that
Reid was not more responsible for the crash because:
· Reid’s
dark clothing,
· His
lack of reflectors and lights,
· His
lack of sleep at the time of the accident, and
· Reid’s
blood alcohol content was 0.07.
Finally, the trial
court concluded that Reid had not established any evidence of negligence on the
part of the defendants.
Summary Disposition Analysis
The COA provided
an extensive analysis of both the facts and the law as applied to those facts.
Beginning with a discussion of
summary disposition, the COA said:
“…when entertaining a summary disposition motion under subrule (C)(10), the
court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and
refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.”
The MCOA concluded
that the circuit court violated all of these precepts stating “One might
rationally argue that Deputy Neff correctly attributed all fault for the crash
to Reid, and a jury may eventually so find. On the other hand, neither this
Court nor the circuit court may simply disregard the evidence presented by the
estate. Nor may a court choose to credit the testimony of one witness over that
of another, or make findings regarding which witnesses were more believable. By
ignoring the expert testimony, judging the credibility of the witnesses, and
selectively picking and choosing facts from the record, the circuit court
usurped the function of the jury.”
Bicycles on Public Roads
The Supreme Court
declared the rights of drivers and bicyclists to use public roads are “mutual
and co-ordinate” in 1924.The law provides at MCL 257.662(1), that a motorist
must use due care when passing a bicycle that can be seen and must drive “at a
careful and prudent speed.” A bicyclist, on the other hand, must signal a turn,
MCL 257.648, and use a visible “lamp” when traveling “between ½ hour after
sunset and ½ hour before sunrise.” In this case, the court applied the
background principles concerning the car-bicycle relationship in a broader
legal context.
Negligence
Causation in a
negligence action requires proof of both cause in fact and proximate cause.
Cause in fact “generally requires showing that ‘but for’ the defendant’s
actions, the plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred.” Proximate cause
involves an examination of the foreseeability of consequences, and a determination
whether a defendant should be held legally responsible for those consequences.
Although the plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to causation, the plaintiff
need not produce evidence positively eliminating every other potential cause of
an accident. Normally, the issue of cause and whether a driver was negligent is
left to the jury.
After a review of
the record regarding Defendant Walker, the COA concluded that there were
sufficient contested fact questions for the jury to resolve such as whether 1)
he was speeding, 2) he used his high beams, 3) he saw Reid in time to avoid him
and 4) he hit the bike from the rear or the side. Also at issue is the degree
of Reid’s impairment due to consumption of alcohol.
After a finding
upholding the summary disposition re: defendants Willis and Voight, the COA
reversed re: defendant Walker and remanded the matter to the Circuit court for
further proceedings. In his dissenting opinion, Judge O’Connell would uphold
the lower court’s decision that no reasonable juror could conclude that Reid
was less than 50% responsible for the accident.
Labels: appeals, auto-bicycle accident, bicyclist, comparative negligence, Court, Island Lakes State Recreation Area, livingston county, MCL 257.648, MCL 257.662(1), Michigan, Michigan Appeals
