motor vehicle exception in Michigan

2026Defendants rely on Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 457 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000), which held that “[g]iven the fact that the motor vehicle exception must be narrowly construed, we conclude that plaintiffs cannot satisfy the ‘resulting from’ language of the statute where the pursuing police vehicle did not hit the fleeing car or otherwise physically force it off the road or into another vehicle or object.” Plaintiff argues the facts of this case are distinguishable from Robinson3 because the police vehicles involved in the chases in Robinson activated their lights and sirens or otherwise identifi

2026Defendants rely on Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 457 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000), which held that “[g]iven the fact that the motor vehicle exception must be narrowly construed, we conclude that plaintiffs cannot satisfy the ‘resulting from’ language of the statute where the pursuing police vehicle did not hit the fleeing car or otherwise physically force it off the road or into another vehicle or object.” Plaintiff argues the facts of this case are distinguishable from Robinson3 because the police vehicles involved in the chases in Robinson activated their lights and sirens or otherwise identifi

2014“BODILY INJURY” We interpreted the phrase “bodily injury” in Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, specifically within the context of the motor vehicle exception.41 The central issue in Wesche was “whether the motor vehicle exception . . . authorizes a claim for loss of consortium against a governmental agency.”42 In analyzing the language of the motor vehicle exception, we stated: “This language is clear: it imposes liability for ‘bodily injury’ and ‘property damage’ resulting from a governmental employee’s negligent operation of a government-owned motor vehicle.”43 Because the GTLA does not define “b

2011There are, however, six exceptions to governmental immunity, including the motor-vehicle exception, which allows a private party to maintain an action against a governmental agency for “bodily injury and property damage resulting 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; see also Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1, 5-6 ; 782 NW2d 171 (2010).

2020“MCL 500.3114(5)[] establishes the priority in which a motorcycle rider accidentally injured by a motor vehicle must claim no-fault benefits.” Farmers Ins Exch v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 272 Mich App 106, 111 ; 724 NW2d 485 (2006).

2020“MCL 500.3114(5)[] establishes the priority in which a motorcycle rider accidentally injured by a motor vehicle must claim no-fault benefits.” Farmers Ins Exch v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 272 Mich App 106, 111 ; 724 NW2d 485 (2006).

2024An activity that is expressly or impliedly authorized or mandated by constitution, statute, local charter, ordinance, or other law constitutes a government function. [Id. at 391-392 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Among the six exceptions to governmental immunity enumerated in the GTLA is the motor vehicle exception, or negligent-operation exception, MCL 691.1405, which states: “Governmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from the negligent operation by an officer, agent, or employee of the governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the

2024An activity that is expressly or impliedly authorized or mandated by constitution, statute, local charter, ordinance, or other law constitutes a government function. [Id. at 391-392 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Among the six exceptions to governmental immunity enumerated in the GTLA is the motor vehicle exception, or negligent-operation exception, MCL 691.1405, which states: “Governmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from the negligent operation by an officer, agent, or employee of the governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW “This Court reviews the grant or denial of summary disposition de novo to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW “This Court reviews the grant or denial of summary disposition de novo to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).

2022See MCL 691.1401(a), (d), and (e). 3 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 619.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). -3- processing of applications for a license.

2021While we concur with plaintiffs’ broad statement, the individual 4 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 619.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). -5- council members are not parties to this lawsuit.

2025One exception to governmental immunity, known as the motor vehicle exception, Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45, 50 ; 860 NW2d 67 (2014), states that “[g]overnmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting 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. “[T]he restrictions on damages recoverable in third-party tort actions involving motor vehicle accidents set forth in MCL 500.3135 of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., apply to cas

2025One exception to governmental immunity, known as the motor vehicle exception, Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45, 50 ; 860 NW2d 67 (2014), states that “[g]overnmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting 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. “[T]he restrictions on damages recoverable in third-party tort actions involving motor vehicle accidents set forth in MCL 500.3135 of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., apply to cas

2026In Chandler v Co of Muskegon, 467 Mich 315, 319-322 ; 652 NW2d 224 (2002), our Supreme Court interpreted the word “operation” in the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405.

2026Thus, to fall within the scope of the motor- vehicle exception, the plaintiff’s claim must involve “activities that are directly associated with the driving of a motor vehicle.” Id. at 321 .

2023In Stanton v City of Battle Creek, 466 Mich 611, 616-617 ; 647 NW2d 508 (2002), our Supreme Court observed that the motor-vehicle exception in MCL 691.1405 does not provide a definition of “motor vehicle,” and rejected this Court’s analysis applying the definition of “motor vehicle” found in the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq.

2023In Stanton v City of Battle Creek, 466 Mich 611, 616-617 ; 647 NW2d 508 (2002), our Supreme Court observed that the motor-vehicle exception in MCL 691.1405 does not provide a definition of “motor vehicle,” and rejected this Court’s analysis applying the definition of “motor vehicle” found in the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq.

2022“The statutory exceptions contained in the [Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA)] are: (1) the highway exception, MCL 691.1402, (2) the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405, (3) the public building exception, MCL 691.1406, (4) the governmental hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4), (5) the proprietary function exception, MCL 691.1413, and (6) the sewage system event exception, MCL 691.1417.” In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 , 378 n 21; 835 NW2d 545 (2013).

2022“The statutory exceptions contained in the [Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA)] are: (1) the highway exception, MCL 691.1402, (2) the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405, (3) the public building exception, MCL 691.1406, (4) the governmental hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4), (5) the proprietary function exception, MCL 691.1413, and (6) the sewage system event exception, MCL 691.1417.” In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 , 378 n 21; 835 NW2d 545 (2013).

2022See Pioneer State Mut Ins Co v Titan Ins Co, 252 Mich App 330, 335-336 ; 652 NW2d 469 (2002) (holding “the statute does not mandate that the vehicle involved in the accident must have been insured by the insurer of the owner before an injured person can seek benefits.”); see also Farmers Ins Exch v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 272 Mich App 106, 113-114 ; 724 NW2d 485 (2006) (stating that “the insurer need not insure the vehicle in the accident, but must insure the owner or registrant).

2022See Pioneer State Mut Ins Co v Titan Ins Co, 252 Mich App 330, 335-336 ; 652 NW2d 469 (2002) (holding “the statute does not mandate that the vehicle involved in the accident must have been insured by the insurer of the owner before an injured person can seek benefits.”); see also Farmers Ins Exch v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 272 Mich App 106, 113-114 ; 724 NW2d 485 (2006) (stating that “the insurer need not insure the vehicle in the accident, but must insure the owner or registrant).

2014See also MCL 691.1407(1) and Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 593-608 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984) (providing a detailed histoiy of sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, and the GTLA). 34 The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity contained within the GTLA precede and follow the general grant of immunity in MCL 691.1407(1): “the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the puhlic-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewa

2014See also MCL 691.1407(1) and Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 593-608 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984) (providing a detailed histoiy of sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, and the GTLA). 34 The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity contained within the GTLA precede and follow the general grant of immunity in MCL 691.1407(1): “the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the puhlic-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewa

2024See Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 297 Mich App 427, 432 ; 824 NW2d 318 (2012) (holding that the motor-vehicle exception did not apply to a passenger injured when she was ejected from her wheelchair when a bus driver applied the brakes because the passenger was not injured during the loading or unloading process).

2024See Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 297 Mich App 427, 432 ; 824 NW2d 318 (2012) (holding that the motor-vehicle exception did not apply to a passenger injured when she was ejected from her wheelchair when a bus driver applied the brakes because the passenger was not injured during the loading or unloading process).

2025The established “statutory exceptions to the governmental immunity provided to the state and its agencies are the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage- disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Odom v Wayne County, 482 Mich 459 , 478 n 62; 760 NW2d 217 (2008) (citation omitted).

2025The established “statutory exceptions to the governmental immunity provided to the state and its agencies are the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage- disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Odom v Wayne County, 482 Mich 459 , 478 n 62; 760 NW2d 217 (2008) (citation omitted).

2026In a somewhat similar case, the plaintiff slipped and fell down the steps of a shuttle bus as she was attempting to exit the bus, and our Supreme Court held that the motor-vehicle exception applied because “[t]he loading and unloading of passengers is an action within the ‘operation’ of a shuttle bus.” Martin v Rapid Inter-Urban Transit Partnership, 480 Mich 936, 936 (2007).

2023In Martin v Rapid Inter-Urban Transit Partnership, 480 Mich 936 ; 740 NW2d 657 (2007), the plaintiff alleged “that she slipped and fell down the steps of a shuttle bus owned and operated by the defendants as she was attempting to exit the bus.” The Court concluded that the motor- vehicle exception applied because “[t]he loading and unloading of passengers is an action within the ‘operation’ of a shuttle bus.” Id.

2019MCL 257.625(4) provides that “[a] person, whether licensed or not, who operates a motor vehicle in violation of subsection (1), (3), or (8) and by the operation of that motor vehicle causes the death of another person is guilty of a crime as follows[.]” “In criminal jurisprudence, the causation element of an offense is generally comprised of two components: factual cause and proximate cause.” People v Schaefer, 473 Mich 418, 435 ; 703 NW2d 774 (2005).

2019MCL 257.625(4) provides that “[a] person, whether licensed or not, who operates a motor vehicle in violation of subsection (1), (3), or (8) and by the operation of that motor vehicle causes the death of another person is guilty of a crime as follows[.]” “In criminal jurisprudence, the causation element of an offense is generally comprised of two components: factual cause and proximate cause.” People v Schaefer, 473 Mich 418, 435 ; 703 NW2d 774 (2005).

2024In Strozier v Flint Community Sch, 295 Mich App 82 ; 811 NW2d 59 (2011), this Court again considered the meaning of the term “operation” with regard to the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity.

2024In Strozier v Flint Community Sch, 295 Mich App 82 ; 811 NW2d 59 (2011), this Court again considered the meaning of the term “operation” with regard to the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity.

2024Id. at 353 .

2019Poppen, 256 Mich App at 355 .