BONNIE M SCHRAY V MICHIGAN STATE UNIV
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BONNIE M. SCHRAY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 217986
Court of Claims
LC No. 94-015611-CM
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of judgment in favor of defendant entered
following a bench trial and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion requesting the court to
amend its findings and enter a judgment in favor of plaintiff. We affirm.
This case arises out of a traffic accident that occurred on the Michigan State University
campus at the intersection of Shaw Lane and Birch Road. Plaintiff alleged that she drove her car
into the side of a bus because the bus driver negligently drove through the intersection, despite
the presence of a stop sign.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for
requesting the court to amend its findings and enter a judgment in her favor because the finding
that the bus driver exercised reasonable care under the circumstances was against the great
weight of the evidence. We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion on the
ground that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence for a clear abuse of
discretion. Arrington v Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp (On Remand), 196 Mich App 544,
551; 493 NW2d 492 (1992). In determining whether a clear abuse of discretion exists in such
instance, we engage in an in-depth analysis of the record below. Id. at 560. We give substantial
deference to a trial court’s determination that the verdict is not against the great weight of the
evidence. Id.
Under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1405; MSA
3.996(105), governmental agencies are liable for injuries arising from their employees’ negligent
operation of a government-owned motor vehicle. “To establish a prima facie case of negligence,
a plaintiff must introduce evidence sufficient to establish that (1) the defendant owed a duty to
the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the defendant’s breach was a proximate
-1-
cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages.” Spikes v Banks, 231
Mich App 341, 355; 586 NW2d 106 (1998). With respect to the second element, a defendant
may breach the duty of care by failing to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.
Antcliff v State Employees Credit Union, 414 Mich 624, 631-632; 327 NW2d 814 (1982).
After reviewing the record below, we conclude that the judgment was not against the
great weight of the evidence. Although the bus driver readily admitted that he did not stop at the
stop sign before proceeding through the intersection, we believe that there was sufficient
evidence that a traffic controller waved him through the intersection. Indeed, an uninterested
witness in this case testified that she saw a traffic controller wave the bus through the
intersection. Moreover, although the bus driver testified that he could not remember whether a
traffic controller waved him through the intersection, after the accident he told an MSU police
officer who investigated the scene of the accident that a traffic controller waved him through the
intersection. Because there was sufficient evidence that the traffic controller waved the bus
driver through the intersection, we believe that he was justified in relying on the traffic
controller’s assessment that it was safe to proceed through the intersection without having to stop
at the stop sign. Moreover, the bus driver testified that the traffic controllers had stopped traffic
in both the eastbound and westbound lanes of Shaw Lane and that it appeared safe to proceed
through the intersection. Simply stated, a reasonable and prudent bus driver under the same and
similar circumstances would have acted in the same manner as the bus driver did in this case.
In addition, there was also evidence that once the bus driver proceeded through the
intersection, he did so in a reasonable and prudent manner. The bus driver testified that as he
proceeded through the intersection, he looked in both directions the entire way through the
intersection and was traveling approximately fifteen miles per hour. Accordingly, we are
satisfied that the bus driver was not negligent because he exercised reasonable care under the
circumstances. The trial court properly entered a judgment for defendant and did not abuse its
discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new judgment in her favor because the verdict was
not against the great weight of the evidence.
Affirmed.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.