Search Post
Categories
Recent Posts
- Beth Iatrou Named Exceptional Educator for November by Giroux Pappas
- Two Michigan Hospitals Get Failing Grades for Patient Safety
- Alexis Andrews Sworn In as a Michigan Attorney
- Giroux Pappas Named to Best Law Firms® List for 2025
- Giroux Pappas a Repeat Finalist for BBB Torch Award
- Bob Giroux Recognized as a “Go To Lawyer” for Negligence Law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly
- Brighton Pastor Hidden Camera Case: Justice for Victims
- Giroux Pappas Supports WXYZ’s “Give a Child a Book” Campaign By Matching Donations
- Michigan Supreme Court Protects Condo Owners’ Rights: Condo Associations Now Accountable for Injuries on Common Property
- Doctor Arrested in Shocking Sexual Abuse Case in Rochester Hills
- Giroux Pappas Honored in 2025 Best Lawyers in America®
- Two Kids One Adult Injured in Ann Arbor Car Accident
- What Are the Most Common Types of Medical Negligence in a Hospital in Michigan?
- Man Has Serious Injuries After Accident with Truck
- Multiple People Killed In Michigan Motorcycle Accidents
- Are Traffic Laws Tougher in Road Work Zones?
- Tragic Wrong-Way Car Crash on I-94 Claims Two
- Oxford Township Man Tragically Killed, Grandson Injured in Motorcycle Crash
- Top FAQs on Michigan Motorcycle Accidents You Must Know
- Semi-Truck Accident on I-96: Know Your Legal Rights Today
A Bus Driver is Responsible to Properly Secure a Wheelchair to the Bus Restraint System
In the unpublished decision of Estate of Rita H. Hughes v City of Livonia, No. 340447 (April 30, 2019), the Michigan Court of Appeals recently held that there were sufficient questions of fact to avoid dismissal of a claim involving serious personal injuries sustained by a woman when her wheelchair was not properly secured by a City of Livonia bus driver. The bus driver had operated the wheelchair lift, selected a spot for the woman and attached the wheelchair the to bus’s Q’Straint system. However, when the bus hit a pothole, her wheelchair rolled forward, backward and then flipped backward.
First, the City of Livonia argued that it was entitled to immunity as a matter of law because the bus driver’s actions were not part of the “operation” of the bus and, even if they were, he was not negligent. The trial court and the Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that securing the wheelchair to the Q’Straint system is part of the process of loading and unloading passengers and part of “operation” of a bus.
The Court further held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the driver negligently secured the decedent’s wheelchair based on expert testimony that sand, dirt, and debris in the restraint system’s L-track prevented the front two anchorages from totally engaging, and locking into place, which the bus driver failed to confirm before departing.
Finally, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court that there was a fact question as to whether the sudden lurch of the bus was caused by the driver’s negligent driver, stating that sudden jolts “are a normal incident of travel.”
http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2019/043019/70393.pdf