Background
Michelle Barnett was injured after boarding a City of Detroit bus with carryout food and a cart containing groceries. About three minutes after she boarded, while she was sitting down and getting settled, the driver braked hard twice in quick succession. Barnett fell to the floor along with her overturned cart and food.
The driver testified that a car suddenly crossed the bus’s lane to make a right turn and that he pumped the brakes to avoid a collision. Barnett could not see why the driver braked, but other passengers told her that a car had pulled in front of the bus. She sued the City of Detroit, the Detroit Department of Transportation, and the driver for personal protection insurance benefits and third-party automobile-negligence damages. The driver was dismissed without prejudice after he was not timely served.
The city and DDOT sought partial summary disposition of the third-party claim based on governmental immunity. The Wayne Circuit Court denied the motion without substantive explanation, and the city and DDOT appealed as of right.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed. It first held that Barnett’s complaint adequately pleaded a claim under MCL 691.1405, the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity. Her allegations identified negligent operation of the city-owned bus, bodily injuries, and causation sufficiently to plead in avoidance of immunity.
But Barnett failed to produce evidence creating a genuine factual dispute that the driver negligently operated the bus. Michigan precedent treats sudden starts, stops, jerks, and jolts as normal incidents of bus travel absent evidence that they were unnecessarily sudden or violent or resulted from some other operational negligence. The record showed that the driver braked to avoid a car that suddenly crossed his lane, while Barnett offered no evidence supporting her allegations that he was inattentive, driving too fast, or otherwise negligent.
The court also concluded that the driver had no duty to wait for Barnett to be seated before proceeding. Barnett identified no special and apparent reason—such as visible frailty, infirmity, disability, or need for assistance—that required the driver to wait, and the braking occurred approximately three minutes after she boarded. The court remanded for entry of partial summary disposition with prejudice for the city and DDOT under MCR 2.116(C)(7). Barnett’s PIP claim was not at issue and remained unaffected.
Key Takeaways
- A complaint may adequately invoke Michigan’s motor-vehicle exception while still failing at summary disposition for lack of evidence of negligent operation.
- A bus passenger’s injury from sudden braking does not by itself establish negligence; ordinary jerks, jolts, and stops are considered normal incidents of travel.
- A public carrier generally need not wait for a boarding passenger to sit unless a special and apparent circumstance indicates that the passenger needs additional care or assistance.
- For an MCL 691.1405 claim, ordinary negligence requires the alleged breach to be “a” proximate cause, not “the” single most immediate and direct cause.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that plaintiffs seeking to overcome governmental immunity under Michigan’s motor-vehicle exception need evidence connecting their injuries to negligent vehicle operation. Proof that a passenger fell when a government-operated bus braked abruptly is insufficient when the evidence instead shows that the driver was responding to a sudden traffic hazard.
The opinion also distinguishes pleading from proof: Barnett sufficiently alleged an exception to immunity, but she could not substantiate those allegations after discovery. For public-transit litigation, the decision reinforces the importance of evidence showing that a stop or jolt was unusually violent, unnecessary, or attributable to some independently negligent driving conduct.