 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Regan v. Washtenaw County Board of County Road Commissioners6/10/2003
FOR PUBLICATION
ON REMAND
This consolidated appeal is before us again by order of the Michigan Supreme Court, 468 Mich 851; 658 NW2d 490 (2003), in which the Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, remanded the cases with instructions to reconsider our previous decision in light of the rulings in Stanton v City of Battle Creek, 466 Mich 611; 647 NW2d 508 (2002), and Chandler v Muskegon Co, 467 Mich 315; 652 NW2d 224 (2002). On reconsideration, we conclude that the broom tractor in the Regan case and the tractor mower in the Zelanko case are "motor vehicles" under 691.1405, and that in both cases, the motor vehicles were being operated as motor vehicles when the alleged negligence occurred. Moreover, plaintiffs alleged that the operation of the motor vehicles in a negligent manner directly caused injuries for which they seek recovery, thereby properly pleading in avoidance of governmental immunity under the "motor vehicle" exception, MCL 691.1405. We therefore, once again, affirm the trial court's denial of defendant's motions for summary disposition.
Our previous opinion in this matter presented the factual circumstances involved in both cases.
In the Regan case, plaintiff Dona Regan was driving a when she collided with a broom tractor owned by defendant road commission and operated by defendant David Cavanaugh, an employee of defendant. The Regans' complaint alleged that the tractor, which was the third vehicle in a five-vehicle convoy performing shoulder maintenance, straddled a fog line and extended several feet into her lane, which caused Regan to move to the left in an effort to pass the tractor, at which time a blinding dust cloud formed and Regan's vehicle and the county vehicle collided. The Regans further alleged that the operator was negligent in failing to pay proper attention to his course of travel and the movement of others on the highway, in failing to keep a sharp and careful look-out, in failing to be observant of conditions, and in failing to keep his tractor constantly under control.
In the Zelanko case, plaintiff Leonard Zelanko's tractor-trailer rig was struck in the windshield by a piece of tire tread propelled by a tractor mower operated by defendant Richard Lee Shehan, an employee of defendant, after Shehan ran over the tire tread while cutting grass along the side of the highway. The tire tread shattered the windshield and caused injuries to Zelanko. Zelanko alleged that the operator was negligent in failing to operate the tractor with due care and caution, in failing to maintain control of the tractor at all times, in failing to avoid driving over the tire tread, and in failing to keep a sharp lookout so as to avoid injuring Zelanko. [Regan v Washtenaw Co Bd of Co Rd Comm'rs, 249 Mich App 153, 155-156; 641 NW2d 285 (2002).]
Defendant previously argued to this Court that the trial court erred in denying its motions for summary disposition in the Regan and Zelanko cases. Defendant maintained that plaintiffs' complaints did not allege injuries arising out of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, but rather out of negligent street-sweeping and lawn-mowing; therefore, MCL 691.1405 was inoperative. We rejected defendant's argument, noting that the allegations contained in the complaints alleged injuries caused by the negligent operation of the broom tractor and the tractor mower. Regan, supra at 155-156, 161, nn 4-6. We ruled that " laintiffs alleged a direct and physical link between the operation of the county vehicles and plaintiffs' injuries," and we concluded:
he operation of a motor vehicle by a governmental employee is typically in a setting where a governmental function is being
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|