Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


ESTATE OF ANTON DREW GEIL, Deceased, THERESA M. GEIL, and FREDERICK C. GEIL, Individually and as Next of Friend of CONNOR G. GEIL and CELESTE A. GEIL, Minors, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v GRATA, a/k/a GRAND RAPIDS AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a/k/a INTERURBAN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP, a/k/a THE RAPID, CARRIE JEAN SANDERS, and CITY OF WYOMING, Defendants, and KENT COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED January 30, 2007

No. 263532 Kent Circuit Court LC No. 04-005185-NI

Before: Murray, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Owens, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant Kent County Road Commission (Defendant) moved for sanctions against plaintiffs under both the court rule, MCR 2.114, and statute, MCL 600.2591. The trial court, which was intimately familiar with the facts and arguments made throughout this case, denied the motion, briefly setting forth on the record several reasons for its decision. Defendant appeals by leave granted, and we affirm. This wrongful death action arose from the death of Anton Geil in an accident that occurred at the intersection of Byron Center Avenue and Porter Street in the city of Wyoming on July 31, 2002. The decedent was a pedestrian or bicyclist hit by a Grand Rapids Transit Authority bus. Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint against The Grand Rapids Area Transit Authority (GRATA), but GRATA filed a notice of nonparty fault on September 7, 2004, asserting that the design of the intersection, and the failure to maintain the crosswalk signals,

-1-


caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' injuries, and that the city of Wyoming and/or defendant road commission was responsible for same. Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the notice on the ground that GRATA failed to comply with MCR 2.112(K)(3)(a), which provides that "[a] party against whom a claim is asserted may give notice of a claim that a nonparty is wholly or partially at fault." Plaintiffs claimed that GRATA simply stated that either the city of Wyoming or defendant road commission, or both, were responsible for the design and maintenance of the intersection, and the installation of appropriate traffic lights and crosswalk signals at the intersection. Plaintiffs also alleged that GRATA failed to provide the last known addresses of the nonparties. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint, adding counts against defendant and the city of Wyoming. Pertinent to this appeal, plaintiffs alleged that defendant was vicariously liable for the decedent's injuries by virtue of a contractual agreement with GRATA. The complaint also alleged that defendant had authority over the streets of the intersection where the accident took place, and that defendant breached its duty to the public by failing to design, construct, or maintain appropriate traffic signals or devices, making the intersection inherently dangerous. Defendant moved the trial court for summary disposition and sanctions, arguing that it had no vicarious liability for the acts of GRATA because no contractual relationship existed between them. Defendant also argued that it was not liable for any alleged malfunction of traffic lights, or for improper design of the intersection, because it had no jurisdiction over the intersection. Finally, defendant argued that it had statutory immunity pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1401 et seq., and that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and by plaintiffs' failure to provide the required notice to defendant pursuant to MCL 691.1404. At the same time, defendant separately moved for sanctions, alleging that plaintiffs had no evidence that the intersection was designed improperly or that the traffic lights did not function properly, that plaintiffs' expert informed counsel of that opinion before they filed their complaint, and that defendant had no jurisdiction over the intersection. The trial court denied the motion, essentially concluding that it would not be just to award sanctions and the amended complaint was not frivolous. We agree with defendant's assertion that although MCR 1.105 can be utilized as an interpretive tool when reading a court rule such as MCR 2.114, it has no bearing on the application of a statute, and in particular MCL 600.2591. Nevertheless, we conclude that the trial court made a separate determination that plaintiffs' first amended complaint was not frivolous under either the statute or court rule. After initially, and improperly, indicating that it would not be "just" to impose sanctions in light of MCR 1.105, the court went on to conclude that the action was not frivolous: I understand and comprehend Mr. Behler's [defense counsel] arguments. I respectfully disagree with them. I don't believe that

Download EST OF ANTON DREW GEIL V GRATA.pdf

Michigan Law