|
No. 134408
| Laura K. Fundunburks, |
|
David S. Mittleman |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Ingham - Manderfield, P.) |
|
|
| Capital Area Transportation Authority and |
|
|
| Michelle Beard, |
|
Mary Massaron Ross |
| Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendants-Appellants' Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Defendants-Appellants' Supplemental Brief>>
Michigan County Road Commission Self-Insurance Pool's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Laura Fundunburks was a passenger on a city bus driven by Michelle Beard. According to Fundunburks she was exiting the bus through its rear doors when the doors began to close. She fell forward onto the ground and injured both knees. Fundunburks sued Beard and one other defendant, but Beard denied that she was liable for Fundunburks’ injuries and raised “governmental immunity” as a defense. Under MCL 691.1407(2), a governmental agency employee like Beard is immune from tort liability for an injury to a person caused by the employee while in the course of employment, so long as certain conditions are satisfied. If the employee’s conduct amounts to “gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury,” then the governmental immunity protections of MCL 691.1407(2) do not apply, and the employee may be liable. “Gross negligence” means “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” MCL 691.1407(7)(a). Relying on MCL 691.1407(2), Beard filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that she did not act in a grossly negligent manner, and that she was therefore entitled to governmental immunity. The trial court rejected Beard’s governmental immunity defense, stating that it would be premature to grant a motion for summary disposition because discovery was not complete (specifically, Beard’s deposition had not yet been taken). The trial court stated that the motion could be renewed at a later date. The other defendant’s motion for summary disposition was also denied. Both defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. The defendants appeal.
Top of Page
|
