Motor Vehicles — Ownership Liability – Intent

Motor Vehicles — Ownership Liability – Intent

Where a plaintiff, who was run over by a van, filed a complaint alleging ownership liability under MCL 257.401(1), the defendants’ motion for summary disposition should have been allowed because ownership liability does not arise in the context of a driver’s intentional torts.

“In these consolidated, interlocutory appeals, defendants-appellants, The Household of Faith Which is the Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, Inc., and The Household of Faith Which is the Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of the Truth (collectively, ‘HFC-MS’), and defendants-appellants, Household of Faith Church, and Household of Faith, Inc. (collectively, ‘HFC-Detroit’), appeal by leave granted the trial court’s order denying their respective motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10). Plaintiff-appellee, Santwan Reese filed a complaint alleging, among other things, ownership liability under MCL 257.401(1) against these defendants. Because ownership liability does not arise in the context of a driver’s intentional torts, we reverse the trial court’s orders denying summary disposition and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

“This case arises from a September 22, 2019 altercation involving Reese and defendant, Jalen James. On that day, James drove his grandmother and other parishioners in a van to their church, HFC-Detroit. James’s grandmother was the pastor at HFC-Detroit. HFC-MS is located in Mississippi and it is HFC-Detroit’s sister church. The van purportedly belonged to HFC-MS and HFC-Detroit had borrowed the van from HFC-MS.

“James was supposed to return to HFC-Detroit later in the day to pick up the group of parishioners. Instead, he went to a neighbor’s front porch and drank alcohol. James got into an argument with another person, and Reese intervened. Reese eventually left, walking up the street to James’s house. At the same time, James jumped into the van driving toward Reese. Reese was standing near James’s house when James revved the van’s engine and ran Reese over. Reese was seriously injured and James was later charged and convicted for the attack.

“Although Reese’s complaint alleged negligence, gross negligence, or willful and wanton misconduct, the trial court was not beholden to the labels Reese attached to the complaint. … The trial court should have looked beyond those labels and understood that Reese’s pleadings established that James’s actions were, in essence, an assault. Partial summary disposition under subsection (C)(10) should have been granted because the evidence presented established James committed an intentional tort against Reese, and the trial court erred when it concluded otherwise.

“Reversed and remanded for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.”

Concurring opinion

SHAPIRO, P.J. (concurring). “I concur. As the majority makes clear, plaintiff testified that it was his belief, based on his direct observation, that defendant Jalen James was intentionally attempting to run him over. If this was not sufficiently clear from the initial impact, plaintiff testified that, after the initial impact, James put the van in reverse and attempted to back up to strike plaintiff a second time. By contrast, James testified that it was not his intent to hit plaintiff.

“If this testimony was the extent of the evidence, I would conclude that there was a material question of fact for the jury. But this was not the extent of the evidence. James had already pleaded guilty to assault with intent to do great bodily harm, MCL 750.84(1)(a), and during his plea, while under oath, he admitted that he intended to hit plaintiff. Given that binding admission, I agree that there is no question of material fact and that the trial court erred by denying summary disposition to defendant owner.”

Reese v. James; MiLW 07-107232, 7 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals published; Cameron, J., joined by M. J. Kelly, J.; Shapiro, J., concurring; on appeal from Wayne Circuit Court; Joseph Fraser for appellant; Jonathan Marko for appellee.

Read More: https://milawyersweekly.com/news/2023/10/12/motor-vehicles-ownership-liability-intent/