Third-party no-fault action seeking noneconomic damages under MCL 500.3135(1); Governmental immunity; The motor-vehicle exception; MCL 691.1405; Whether summary disposition was appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(7); Pleading in avoidance of governmental immunity; Mack v City of Detroit; Whether summary disposition was appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10); Careless or negligence operation of a vehicle; MCL 257.626(b)

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendant-city’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because there was no genuine dispute of material fact that defendant-bus driver (Farmer), a city employee, was not at fault for the accident. Plaintiff-Robinson sued defendants seeking noneconomic damages for injuries he sustained when his car was hit by a city bus. The trial court denied the city’s motion for summary disposition. On appeal, the court rejected the city’s argument that because plaintiff failed to plead in avoidance of governmental immunity, his claim should be dismissed under MCR 2.116(C)(7). It noted that although the city was correct that plaintiff’s complaint was devoid of any mention of governmental immunity, his pleaded claim fit “within an enumerated statutory exception to government immunity.” However, the court found that the trial court erred by denying summary disposition for the city under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because the video footage clearly showed plaintiff was at fault for the accident. “Given how well documented the accident is, there can be no genuine dispute of fact that Farmer did not operate the bus in a careless and negligent manner in violation of MCL 257.626(b).” In addition, she “drove at a slow and steady speed and was not given enough time to maintain a safe, clear distance between the bus and Robinson’s vehicle under MCL 257.627(1) because Robinson quickly cut her off. From the video footage, it is clear that Farmer’s conduct bore no causal connection to the accident, and” thus, plaintiff’s injuries. “And having produced no evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude Farmer violated the Michigan Vehicle Code,” plaintiff’s claim against the city should be dismissed. Reversed and remanded.