 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ludwig v. Dick Martin Sports11/20/2003
678 (2001); Tryc v Michigan Veterans' Facility, 451 Mich 129, 134; 545 NW2d 642 (1996). In deciding this motion, the court must consider all documentary evidence submitted by the parties, accepting as true the contents of the complaint unless affidavits or other appropriate documents specifically contradict them. Fane, supra .
B.
Under the governmental immunity statute, public employees are immune from liability for conduct that does not amount to "gross negligence." MCL 691.1407(2); Beaudrie v Henderson , 465 Mich 124, 138-139; 631 NW2d 308 (2001); Maiden v Rozwood , 461 Mich 109, 121-122; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Gross negligence means, "conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results." MCL 691.1407(2)(c); Beaudrie, supra at 138; Maiden, supra at 122.
The trial court granted summary disposition of plaintiffs' claim against defendants Beebe and Wilson, the physical education teachers allegedly responsible for the inspection and maintenance of the sports equipment, including the jump ropes at issue. Plaintiffs assert that these defendants' repetitive pattern of supplying Jacqueline and other students with these worn, unsafe jump ropes demonstrated a substantial lack of concern with respect to whether an injury would result. Plaintiffs argue that the evidence noted above, including the damaged condition of the jump ropes, and the testimony that the ropes were unsafe and that their use was discontinued by the Clintondale Community Schools, was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of gross negligence. We agree.
A question of material fact concerning gross negligence may be established when a defendant fails to take any steps to avoid a known danger. Tallman v Markstrom, 180 Mich App 141; 446 NW2d 618 (1989) (involving a teacher who allowed a student to use a table saw unequipped with guards). Given the testimony and evidence noted above, particularly the deposition testimony of Beebe and three Dimmer-Warren employees that the jump rope at issue was unsafe, and Delia's testimony that he discontinued the use of similar ropes because the splitting of the plastic segments and jagged edges made them dangerous, we conclude that reasonable minds could differ regarding whether defendants' conduct in failing to discard the jump ropes and allowing them to be available for student use constituted gross negligence. Vermilya v Dunham , 195 Mich App 79, 83; 489 NW2d 496 (1992). Further, several witnesses testified that because the jump ropes at issue were unsafe, they should have been discarded. The trial court erred in granting summary disposition for defendants Beebe and Wilson on the basis of governmental immunity.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Karen M. Fort Hood, William B. Murphy, Janet T. Neff.
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|