A mother and her daughter were walking home from a store when they attempted to cross a road outside of crosswalk. While crossing the road, the mother was struck and killed by a car driven by defendant Cieslak. Cieslak testified that he saw the pedestrians ahead of him and believed that they would stop and wait for him to pass before completing their crossing. He stated that they did not and the mother walked in front of his vehicle and he was unable to avoid her. Cieslak gave conflicting statements of his speed at the time of the accident. One officer testified that Cieslak told him he was going 25-30 mph (speed limit was 25mph) and he testified during his deposition that he was traveling between 15 and 25 mph. Another motorist was traveling past the scene at the time of the accident and testified that through his mirror he saw the mother and her daughter stop in the middle of the road where she was struck by Cieslak’s vehicle. The defendant file for summary disposition arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the mother was more than 50% at fault for the accident, and that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Cieslak’s negligence. The trial court agreed and granted summary disposition in favor of Defendant Cieslak. Plaintiff’s personal representative appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition finding that the responding officer’s testimony regarding the speed at which Cieslak was traveling at the time of the accident “creates a material question of fact regarding whether Cieslak was speeding at the time of the accident, and thus was in violation of MCL 257.627(16) and MCL 257.628, which would permit the jury to infer that he was driving negligently.” Additionally, the court noted that given the testimony of the witness, a jury could infer that Cieslak crossed the centerline when he hit the mother. As such, the trial court’s decision was reversed finding that “[i]n cases like this, where there is evidence that both parties may have acted negligently, it is for the jury to apportion fault.”
The case is In Estate of Schobloher v Cieslak, Unpublished Court of Appeals Case No. 342820 (Decided June 13, 2019).
Read about our expertise in Personal Injury & Accident Law.
PERSONAL INJURY & ACCIDENT LAWAbout the Author
