The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that a jury – not a judge – must decide who was at fault in a fatal pedestrian-car crash that claimed the life of Valinda Pudelek. The decision in Estate of Pudelek v. Boriboon ensures that critical questions of negligence and responsibility will be heard in a courtroom, not dismissed before trial.
On September 17, 2025, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying the defendant’s request to throw out the case through summary disposition. This means the case will proceed to trial, where a jury will weigh the evidence and determine fault.
Background of the Fatal Pedestrian-Car Crash
In October 2022, Valinda Pudelek and her husband were crossing Third Street in Wyandotte, Michigan, when she was struck and killed by a vehicle driven by defendant Jurin Boriboon.
Video footage captured the crash, showing that Mr. Boriboon’s vehicle did not brake or swerve before impact. Investigators concluded that he was driving above the posted 25 mph speed limit. Despite streetlights and headlights illuminating the roadway, Mr. Boriboon later claimed the Pudeleks “appeared out of nowhere.”
Police investigators from the Downriver Crash Team testified that the defendant was traveling between 30 and 31 miles per hour and never attempted to slow down before impact. The crash was devastating, and no criminal charges were filed, leaving the family to pursue justice through civil litigation.
The Insurance Company’s Attempt to Dismiss the Case
Mr. Boriboon’s insurance company asked the trial court to dismiss the case through summary disposition. This legal process allows a judge to dismiss a lawsuit before trial if there are no genuine disputes about the facts.
The defense argued that:
- He was not negligent, and
- Even if he was, Ms. Pudelek was more than 50% at fault.
Under Michigan’s comparative fault law, a plaintiff who is more than 50% responsible for an accident cannot recover damages.
Why the Court Denied Summary Disposition
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals disagreed with the defendant’s position. The appellate court emphasized that evidence existed for a jury to find Mr. Boriboon negligent, including:
- Driving above the speed limit.
- Failing to brake or take evasive action.
- Having a clearly illuminated roadway ahead.
The court also noted there was some evidence Ms. Pudelek may have shared responsibility – she crossed at night, wearing dark clothing, and stepped into the lane of travel.
But critically, the Court of Appeals ruled that when reasonable minds could differ about fault, those questions must be left for a jury to decide.
What Is Summary Disposition?
Summary disposition is a legal shortcut that can end a case before trial if there are no real disputes about the facts and the law is clear.
However, when facts are contested – such as whether a driver was speeding, whether a pedestrian looked for traffic, or how much responsibility each person bears – those issues must go before a jury.
⚖️ Understanding Comparative Fault in Michigan
Michigan follows a rule known as comparative fault. This means that when two or more people share responsibility for an accident, a jury assigns percentages of fault to each party.
- If a plaintiff is found 50% or less at fault, they may still recover damages, but their award is reduced by their percentage of fault.
- If a plaintiff is found more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover noneconomic damages.
In the Pudelek case, the defendant argued that Ms. Pudelek was more than 50% responsible. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that reasonable jurors could decide otherwise based on the evidence.
This ruling ensures that the jury – not the judge – will decide how responsibility should be divided.
Why This Case Matters
The Estate of Pudelek decision reinforces a fundamental principle of Michigan law: families deserve to have their cases heard when serious disputes of fact exist. Courts should not take away a family’s right to trial when questions of negligence, responsibility, and justice are at stake.
“At the end of the day, juries – not judges – are the ones entrusted to decide who is responsible when lives are lost in a tragic crash. This decision reaffirms that right and gives families their day in court.” – Donna MacKenzie, President of Olsman MacKenzie Peacock.
As experienced Michigan personal injury lawyers, we fight to ensure that families affected by wrongful death and serious injury accidents have the chance to present their case fully in court. This ruling confirms the importance of allowing juries to hear the evidence and decide fault.
Contact us today to learn how Olsman MacKenzie Peacock can help if you or a family member has been involved in a vehicle accident or pedestrian accident.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What does it mean when the Court of Appeals denies summary disposition?
A: It means the case cannot be dismissed before trial and must go forward, allowing a jury to decide the facts.
Q: Can a pedestrian be found at fault in a car accident in Michigan?
A: Yes. Under Michigan’s comparative fault system, both drivers and pedestrians can share responsibility. A jury decides how fault is divided.
Q: Why is this case important for wrongful death lawsuits?
A: It reaffirms that juries – not judges – should decide disputed facts in wrongful death cases, protecting families’ rights to a fair trial.
Q: Can cases still settle after summary disposition is denied?
A: Absolutely. Even when a case moves forward to trial, the parties can reach a settlement at any point. In fact, many cases resolve through settlement after key court rulings clarify the issues.
Q: What should families know if they lose a loved one in a pedestrian accident?
A: Families should know they have legal rights and may be able to pursue compensation through a wrongful death or negligence claim. Consulting with an experienced attorney can help determine the best path forward.