Court Of Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Denial Of Summary Disposition in Detroit Bus Collision Case
Opinion Published: September 12, 2025 (Ackerman, P.J., M .J. Kelly and O’Brien, JJ)
COA Docket No. 372120
Wayne County Circuit Court
Holding: When there is a genuine issue of material fact, it’s been well established that trial courts must submit the case to a factfinder, and trial courts may grant summary disposition and avoid such submission. Here, the Court of Appeals emphasized an important corollary; a trial court is obligated to grant summary disposition when there is no genuine issue of material facts. In this case, there is no such issue, given the amount of photographic and video footage of the incident, no reasonable juror could find that the bus driver was more at fault than the plaintiff. The trial court erred in denying summary disposition, and is reversed.
Facts: On March 18, 2022, plaintiff Dustin Rowland had parallel parked his car on US 12 in Detroit. As he approached the vehicle, a bus owned by the defendant City of Detroit also approached. The bus was equipped with video cameras, which captured the ensuing incident. Plaintiff opened his driver-side door into traffic, and it was struck by the bus. Plaintiff says that he “sustained a crushing injury and severe lacerations to his left hand.”
In March 2024, plaintiff filed suit in Wayne Circuit Court, alleging counts of “Negligence,” “Gross Negligence,” and “Owner’s Liability Against Defendant City of Detroit.” Along with its answer to the complaint, the City included a counterclaim for a “mini-tort” action under MCL 500.3135(3)(e) and a claim for property damage to the bus caused by plaintiff’s negligence. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, reasoning that the plaintiff had sufficiently established a factual dispute.
Key Appellate Ruling:
When all reasonable persons would agree, the court is as obligated to grant summary disposition as it is to deny it when a genuine dispute exists.
In this case, the appeals court determined that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that plaintiff was less negligent than defendants. Under MCR 2.116(I)(1), “the court shall render judgment” without delay in two circumstances: “[1] [i]f the pleadings show that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or [2] if the affidavits or other proofs show that there is no genuine issue of material fact.” “[T]he rule mandates that if one of two conditions is met, then the court ‘shall render judgment without delay.’ ” Because the “other proofs” in this case are the video recordings from the bus showing the incident clearly, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the trial court was therefore required to grant summary disposition.
