JON T MORNINGSTAR V CLAYTON C REHBERG
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JON T. MORNINGSTAR,
UNPUBLISHED
May 8, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 277991
Monroe Circuit Court
LC No. 06-021241-NI
CLAYTON C. REHBERG,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: White, P.J., and Hoekstra and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order that granted defendant’s motion for
summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this automobile negligence action We
affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff was a passenger in a car that crossed the center line of a two-lane road and was
struck by defendant’s vehicle that was proceeding in the opposite direction. Plaintiff alleges that
defendant was negligent because he was driving too fast for the snowy road conditions and could
have avoided the collision if he had been driving more slowly. The trial court concluded that
defendant’s speed had “nothing to do with it” and granted summary disposition to defendant.
Summary disposition may be granted under MCR 2.116(C)(10) when “there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment . . . as a matter
of law.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). This Court reviews a
trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Id. at 118.
Where a plaintiff fails, by evidence, to show an issue on which reasonable minds could
differ, the question of negligence may be decided as a matter of law. See, e.g., Campbell v
Kovich, 273 Mich App 227, 231-232; 731 NW2d 112 (2006). Viewed most favorably to
plaintiff, the evidence did not show that defendant was driving in excess of the speed limit.
Plaintiff seeks to characterize defendant’s speed and driving as improper because he was unable
to avoid a collision with a vehicle that suddenly crossed the center line of traffic into the path of
oncoming traffic. There was no evidence, only conjecture, that defendant could have steered out
of the way. No reasonable juror would conclude that the exercise of due care requires a driver to
anticipate oncoming traffic suddenly crossing the center line and to operate a vehicle in a manner
that would allow one to avoid the collision. Under the circumstances, the trial court properly
granted summary disposition to defendant.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
