Summary
In Huggins, the court held that the defendant was less than 50% responsible even if he looked away from the road for a few moments to check the time, like Zajdel did here.
Summary of this case from Zajdel v. Exel, Inc.Opinion
No. 123391.
September 18, 2003.
Summary Disposition.
No. 123391. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Shiawassee Circuit Court for entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant. MCR 7.302(G)(1). Assuming arguendo defendant's conduct of taking his eyes off the road to look at his watch while traveling under the posted speed limit was negligent, no reasonable juror could find that defendant was more at fault than the decedent in the accident as required by MCL 500.3135(2)(b). The evidence presented shows that plaintiff was crouching or kneeling in the middle of an unlit rural road in the middle of the night, just beyond the crest of a hill, wearing dark colored clothing at the time he was struck by defendant's automobile. Tests performed by a police accident reconstruction expert revealed that no driver would have enough time to avoid the collision, given the decedent's location just beyond the crest of the hill. There being no genuine issue as to any material fact, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. MCR 2.116(C)(10). Court of Appeals No. 235763.
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ. We would deny leave to appeal.