In DeRose v. Rodgers, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a split ruling that clarifies the limits of governmental immunity and the kinds of claims that can proceed against public transportation authorities and their drivers. The case arose after a Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) bus, driven by employee Rodgers, collided with a motorcycle carrying two riders. The plaintiffs suffered injuries and brought claims against both Rodgers and CATA.
What the Court Decided
The trial court had denied CATA’s and Rodgers’ motion for summary disposition, allowing the case to move forward. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, providing important guidance on three key issues:
✅ Negligence Claim Against CATA Can Proceed
The Court held that the plaintiffs’ claim against CATA under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity could move forward. This exception allows plaintiffs to sue a governmental entity when a government-operated motor vehicle causes injury due to negligence.
The decision hinged largely on plaintiff White’s testimony, which indicated that the bus driver failed to see the motorcycle before turning into the intersection. The Court ruled that a jury could reasonably find the driver breached his duty of care and that plaintiffs were not more than 50% at fault – meaning comparative negligence would not bar recovery.
❌ Gross Negligence Claim Against the Driver Dismissed
While the claim against CATA survived, the same could not be said for the claim against the driver personally. Under Michigan law, individual government employees like bus drivers are immune from liability unless their conduct amounts to gross negligence, a much higher standard than ordinary negligence.
The Court found that Rodgers’ conduct, while possibly negligent, did not rise to the level of gross negligence. As the Court explained, even if a jury concluded that Rodgers “just didn’t see” the motorcycle, that would support a claim of ordinary negligence at most, not gross negligence.
❌ No-Fault Benefits Claim Dismissed
The Court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for unpaid no-fault benefits against CATA. During their depositions, the plaintiffs could not identify any benefits that had been wrongfully withheld. Based on this, the Court found there was no genuine issue of material fact and dismissed that portion of the case.
Why This Case Matters
This decision reinforces the high bar required to pursue gross negligence claims against individual government employees and clarifies that public transportation authorities may still be held liable for ordinary negligence in operating motor vehicles. Importantly, it also highlights the necessity of evidentiary support when pursuing no-fault claims, general allegations without documentation or testimony won’t survive summary disposition.
At Olsman MacKenzie Peacock, we represent victims injured in crashes involving municipal vehicles, including buses, police cars, and public works trucks. If you or someone you love has been injured by the negligence of a government employee or agency, contact us to explore your options. We have the experience and knowledge to navigate the complexities of governmental immunity and to fight for justice when negligence causes serious harm.