Governmental immunity; The motor vehicle exception (MCL 691.1405); Motion to amend; Delay; Causation; Robinson v Detroit; Excess economic damages; MCL 500.3135(3)(c); Serious impairment of an important body function; MCL 500.3135(5)

In this case for excess economic and noneconomic damages as a result of a motor vehicle accident, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to defendants-city and its employee (Nock), reversed the order denying plaintiff’s motion to amend, and remanded. Plaintiff “did not expressly plead that she was bringing her claim under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity or cite to MCL 691.1405.” Instead, she alleged that the city “was liable under a theory of negligent entrustment.” The court found that because “plaintiff’s negligent entrustment claim does not fit within the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity, . . . the trial court did not err by finding that plaintiff failed to plead in avoidance of governmental immunity.” However, she sought “permission to amend her complaint, should the [trial] court conclude that it was not properly plead.” The court held that her “delay alone did not warrant denial of her motion to amend.” And it found that “given the facts of the accident, it would not have been futile for plaintiff to amend the complaint to properly allege a negligence claim under the motor vehicle exception. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion to amend.” She also argued that “there was a genuine issue of material fact whether her injuries were caused by the underlying motor vehicle accident.” The court noted that “to survive summary disposition, plaintiff was required, under MCL 691.1405, to demonstrate that Nock’s alleged negligence caused her injuries.” It concluded that based on the evidence presented, there was “a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation.” The court held that the conclusory affidavit from plaintiff’s provider failed to “create a question of fact regarding whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the accident. However, the testimonial and medical record evidence created ‘a logical sequence of cause and effect’ between the accident and plaintiff’s injuries[.]” Finally, the court concluded that while “defendants’ experts both agreed that plaintiff’s injuries were not the result of a traumatic event, this does not defeat plaintiff’s claim, rather, it demonstrates that there is a factual dispute regarding causation. As a result, the trial court erred by granting” defendants summary disposition.