Background
Detroit EMS driver Ryan Baugh was transporting Delana Gentry, a priority-one patient rescued from a burning home, when his ambulance collided with a vehicle driven by Edwin Nichols at a Detroit intersection and rolled onto its side. Gentry allegedly suffered a traumatic brain injury that led to her death. Her estate asserted that Baugh was negligent or grossly negligent in operating the ambulance.
The evidence conflicted over whether Baugh or Nichols had the green light, whether the ambulance’s emergency lights were activated, how fast the ambulance was traveling, and whether Baugh made sure the intersection was clear before entering it. After an earlier appeal upheld the denial of summary disposition on the negligence claim, Baugh renewed his governmental-immunity motion against the gross-negligence claim. The trial court denied that motion, and Baugh and the City of Detroit appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Viewing the record in the estate’s favor, the court held that genuine issues of material fact existed over whether Baugh’s conduct amounted to gross negligence—conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether injury results. Those disputes included the ambulance’s speed, whether its lights were engaged, and whether Baugh ensured that the intersection was clear before proceeding.
The court also rejected defendants’ reliance on an expert’s simulation placing the ambulance’s impact speed at 22 to 24 miles per hour because Baugh’s own statements and the estate’s expert affidavit created a factual dispute about speed and the assumptions underlying the simulation. Michigan’s emergency-vehicle exemptions did not warrant dismissal because their application likewise depended on disputed facts concerning the ambulance’s lights, speed, and safe operation. A reasonable juror could find gross negligence if Baugh entered a red-light intersection at night without activated lights and without ensuring that it was clear.
Key Takeaways
- Conflicting evidence about an emergency driver’s speed, warning lights, traffic signal, and precautions can require a jury to decide gross negligence.
- An accident-reconstruction opinion does not compel summary disposition when competing evidence disputes its conclusions or factual assumptions.
- Emergency-vehicle privileges do not support dismissal when material facts remain disputed about whether their statutory conditions were satisfied.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that governmental employees generally receive broad tort immunity, but factual disputes may defeat summary disposition when the record could support a finding of statutory gross negligence. Courts may not resolve witness credibility or weigh competing reconstruction evidence at that stage.
For emergency-vehicle cases, statutory permission to pass a red signal or exceed a speed limit remains conditioned on warning-light requirements and safe operation. Disputes over those conditions can leave both immunity and liability for trial.