Listen to this article
A police officer who was involved in a traffic accident should have been awarded summary disposition because her conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence, the Court of Appeals has ruled in an unpublished decision.
The case arose from a crash between a police cruiser operated by the defendant, a Detroit police officer, who was on duty and leaving the scene of an emergency call, and a vehicle operated by Alyssa Maldonado. The plaintiffs were passengers in Maldonado’s vehicle.
The defendant officer was parked near the intersection of Fort Street and Rosa Parks Boulevard in Detroit. As she pulled into the roadway, she changed lanes and struck the vehicle driven by Maldonado, which had just proceeded through the intersection. The officer’s emergency lights were not activated until after the crash. Nothing in the record indicates that either vehicle was traveling at an inappropriate speed when the incident took place.
The plaintiffs brought suit alleging gross negligence. The defendant moved for summary disposition arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to allege sufficient facts to support a finding that her conduct amounted to gross negligence. Concluding that there was a question of fact regarding whether the officer’s conduct was grossly negligent, the trial court denied the motion.
“Here, it is uncontested [the defendant] was engaged in a governmental function and was acting within the scope of her authority at the time of the crash. As such, the only dispute is whether her conduct amounted to gross negligence,” a three-judge Court of Appeals panel wrote in a per curiam opinion.
“Here, [the defendant] pulled from a parked position into the roadway and attempted to change lanes without looking and without using her turn signal. She was not traveling at an excessive rate of speed, it was a clear night, and there were few cars traveling on the road at the time. Although her emergency lights were not activated, there is nothing to suggest that there was a need for her to have those lights on when changing lanes. Even viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, [the defendant’s] conduct is not so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results. Thus, although [the defendant] was negligent, her conduct does not rise to the level of gross negligence. Consequently, the trial court erred by denying her motion for summary disposition,” the panel stated.
The four-page decision is Byard v. Khazaali; MiLW No. 08-110686.
