Background
Seven-year-old ABC followed a Holt Public Schools bus on his bicycle after substitute driver Christine Lynn McPharlin dropped him off. When McPharlin departed from her usual route by turning left, ABC continued straight. The bus struck him, and its rear tires ran over him, causing serious injuries.
ABC’s parents sued McPharlin and the school district for negligence, gross negligence, owner’s liability, and vicarious liability. The circuit court granted summary disposition to the defendants, concluding that McPharlin was neither negligent nor grossly negligent, that her conduct was not the proximate cause of ABC’s injuries, and that no reasonable jury could find her more at fault than ABC.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. Evidence that McPharlin knew ABC had been following or “racing” the bus, combined with an expert’s affidavit that she could have seen him by using her mirrors, created a factual dispute over whether her conduct amounted to gross negligence. A jury could also find that turning the bus while unaware of ABC’s location was the most immediate, efficient, and direct cause of his injuries, as required for the governmental-employee exception under the Governmental Tort Liability Act.
The court also held that factual disputes precluded summary disposition for Holt Public Schools under the motor-vehicle exception. Michigan law required McPharlin to determine that she could turn safely, and a factfinder could conclude that she breached that duty. Comparative fault likewise presented a jury question because ABC was seven years old and therefore could not automatically be judged by an adult standard of care. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A bus driver’s knowledge that a young child is nearby may require greater vigilance and can support a gross-negligence finding.
- A governmental agency may face liability under Michigan’s motor-vehicle exception when an employee’s negligent vehicle operation causes bodily injury.
- The comparative fault of a seven-year-old ordinarily depends on the child’s age, ability, intelligence, and experience and is a question for the jury.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that governmental immunity does not justify summary disposition when material facts remain disputed about an employee’s awareness, vigilance, and causal role in an injury. Courts must view that evidence in the nonmoving party’s favor rather than resolve credibility conflicts.
It also underscores that children’s conduct cannot be evaluated mechanically under adult standards. In vehicle cases involving young children, both the driver’s heightened need for vigilance and the child’s age-specific capacity may materially affect negligence and comparative-fault determinations.