MICHAEL SCHAUB, as Next Friend of LOGAN SCHAUB, Plaintiff-Appellant,
JAMES ALBERT SEYLER, RYANN ELISE HERMAN, and TRAVERSE CITY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendants-Appellees.
Traverse CC: 2017-031989-NI
Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice, David F. Viviano, Chief
Justice Pro Tem, Stephen J. Markman, Brian K. Zahra, Richard
H. Bernstein, Elizabeth T. Clement, Megan K. Cavanagh,
order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the
November 15, 2018 judgment 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
Viviano, J. (concurring).
concur in the denial order because I believe the Court of
Appeals reached the right result under Robinson v
Detroit, 462 Mich. 439, 457 (2000) and Helfer v Ctr
Line Pub Sch, 477 Mich. 931 (2006). I write separately,
however, because, I question whether Robinson and
Helfer correctly interpreted MCL 691.1405.
Logan Schaub, was injured when he was hit by a motor vehicle
while crossing the street to reach his school bus. On the
date of the injury, plaintiff was a 14-year-old high school
freshman who lived on a county road with a speed limit of 55
m.p.h. He was waiting for the bus at 6:45 a.m., while it was
still dark outside. On a typical day, plaintiff did not cross
the road to board the bus and, indeed, according to school
district rules, plaintiff's road was classified as a
"no-cross road." On the day in question,
plaintiff's bus was driven by RyAnn Herman, an alternate
driver who had never driven plaintiff's route before.
When first driving by, Herman missed plaintiff's stop.
Then, she turned the bus around and drove 120 feet past
plaintiff's stop before pulling off to the opposite side
of the road and activating the bus's right turn signal.
The bus was partially on the gravel shoulder and partially on
the traveled portion of the road. Although Herman turned on
the bus's exterior flashing lights for a brief time, she
never activated the bus's red lights or stop sign, which
would have required traffic to stop. Plaintiff attempted to
cross the street to reach the bus, but was hit by a motor
vehicle that was passing the school bus from behind. After
the accident, Herman said (somewhat inconsistently) that
"I had no idea he was gonna cross. I thought that car
was gonna go and then he was gonna cross."
filed suit against Herman, the school district, and the
driver of the motor vehicle that hit him. The trial court
denied the school district's motion for summary
disposition under MCL 691.1405. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed, applying Robinson to hold that
"an injury does not 'result from' the
negligent operation of a government-owned vehicle under MCL
691.1405 unless the government-owned vehicle makes direct
physical contact with the plaintiff in some capacity."
Schaub v Seyler, unpublished per curiam opinion of
the Court of Appeals, issued November 15, 2018 (Docket No.
340993), p 7. Therefore, the school district was immune from
suit under MCL 691.1405 because "plaintiff has never
offered any evidence to suggest that the bus physically
contacted him or [the motor] vehicle."
691.1405 provides, in pertinent part:
Governmental 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 . . .
for a governmental agency to be liable under the motor
vehicle exception to governmental immunity, a plaintiff must
(1) bodily injury or property damage
(2) resulting from
(3) the negligent operation by any governmental officer,