PATSY RECK V JUDITH JO BARNES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PATSY RECK and THOMAS RECK,
UNPUBLISHED
August 3, 1999
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 209602
Saginaw Circuit Court
LC No. 96-013407 NI
JUDITH JO BARNES, MICHAEL BRUCE
BARNES, JEANINE MONET FRANKLIN,
JOHNNIE CONNER and JOHN CLAXON
MARCUM,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: White, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs appeal by right from the trial court’s final order in this automobile negligence case
arising from a multi-vehicle accident on northbound I-75. In that order, the trial court granted summary
disposition in favor of defendants Judith and Michael Barnes and John Marcum, pursuant to MCR
2.116(C)(10), based upon the sudden emergency doctrine. We reverse and remand. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
For the sudden emergency doctrine to apply, the emergency must be unusual or unexpected.
Vander Laan v Miedema, 385 Mich 226, 232-233; 188 NW2d 564 (1971); Amick v Baller, 102
Mich App 339, 341-342; 301 NW2d 530 (1980).
Here, there is conflicting testimony as to whether the icy conditions on the roadway at the
location of the accident were isolated and unforeseeable. Although some of the drivers testified that
they had not encountered slippery conditions on I-75 prior to reaching the accident location, plaintiff
Thomas Reck testified that I-75 was wet, icy and fairly slippery in spots despite having been salted.
Additionally, state trooper Rudy Nitschmann, the accident investigator, testified that his whole patrol
area in general had snowy and icy road conditions, and that quite a few accidents had occurred that
day. Viewing the testimony in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, genuine issues of material fact exist as
to the viability of the sudden emergency defense in this case. Therefore, summary disposition should not
have been granted in favor of defendants Barnes and Marcum based upon that defense.1
-1
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiffs’ claims.
jurisdiction.
We do not retain
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
1
In this appeal, plaintiffs have not challenged the trial court’s previous grant of summary disposition in
favor of defendants Franklin and Conner on the question of proximate causation. See Tomkiw v
Sauceda, 374 Mich 381, 385; 132 NW2d 125 (1965). While plaintiffs had filed an application for
leave to appeal that decision, the application was denied and plaintiffs did not seek to join a challenge to
the earlier decision in the instant appeal.
-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.