Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
June 11, 2010 Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice
140293 & (52) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
JOSETTE TUCKER, Personal Representative Diane M. Hathaway,
of the Estate of Jeanette Collins Justices
Plaintiff-Appellee/
Cross-Appellant,
v SC: 140293
COA: 288367
Ingham CC: 07-001362-NI
CAPITAL AREA TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY a/k/a CATA,
Defendant-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee,
and
JERRY SLEAR and CITY OF LANSING
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2009
order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The application
for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is therefore moot and is DENIED.
CORRIGAN, J. (dissenting).
I would grant leave to appeal to consider defendant’s argument that its bus driver
was not negligent in his operation of defendant’s bus. Even if, as plaintiff claims, the
wheelchair lift on defendant’s bus lacked a safety belt, how did this product defect
constitute “negligent operation” of the bus by the driver, as required to satisfy the motor
vehicle exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1405?
Defendant, the Capital Area Transit Authority (CATA), allegedly failed to provide
a safety belt on a wheelchair lift on its bus. For unknown reasons, plaintiff’s decedent’s
wheelchair went over the end of the lift while the bus was parked and while the bus
2
driver was not behind the wheel. Plaintiff filed this action seeking to take advantage of
the motor vehicle exception.
Although this Court has held that the loading and unloading of passengers is part
of the operation of a bus, Martin v The Rapid Inter-Urban Partnership, 480 Mich 936
(2007), the mere fact that a bus is in operation does not, by itself, satisfy the motor
vehicle exception. The plaintiff must further show that the driver was negligent in that
operation. The motor vehicle exception plainly requires a plaintiff to show that the injury
“result[ed] from the negligent operation by any officer, agent, or employee of the
governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the governmental agency is
owner . . . .” MCL 691.1405 (emphasis added).
The statutory language thus requires us to ask: How was the bus driver negligent
in his operation of the bus, and how did that negligent operation result in the decedent’s
injury? Even if CATA itself acquired or provided a defective product, how does this fact
show that the driver was negligent in his operation of the bus? Because these difficult
questions warrant further scrutiny, I would grant leave to appeal.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
June 11, 2010 _________________________________________
y0608 Clerk