September 17, 2025
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently confirmed the importance of video footage of whatever incident gives rise to a lawsuit. Generally, the truth of a party’s version of events is for the jury to decide, and when a factual dispute exists, a case will not be dismissed on summary disposition. But when incontrovertible video evidence shows that a plaintiff was more at fault than the other party, the case should be dismissed.
The recently published case of Rowland v City of Detroit, ___ Mich App ___ (2025), involved a city bus and a plaintiff that was standing next to his car. The plaintiff was getting into his car and opened the driver door into traffic, and the bus struck the door and the plaintiff as it drove by. The plaintiff argued that the bus swerved or that the driver should have done more to avoid any contact. Defendant produced a video of the accident in support of its motion for summary disposition, arguing the video was dispositive and further discovery would not affect the outcome of the case. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion finding the plaintiff had sufficiently established the existence of a factual dispute.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that “no reasonable factfinder could conclude that plaintiff was less negligent than defendants in light of the indisputable video evidence.” The Court noted that the plaintiff’s actions preceding the incident reflected those of someone who knew oncoming traffic was present and yet “inexplicably opened his car door into traffic….” The Court found the bus driver was not obligated to anticipate that someone would open a door into traffic, especially we the plaintiff’s prior conduct indicated his awareness of traffic conditions. Further, the video flatly refuted the plaintiff’s version of events that the bus driver swerved toward him and crossed the white line marking the travel lane. Ultimately, the Court found the trial court was too deferential to the factfinder’s role. The undisputed video meant that, under MCR 2.116(I)(1), the trial court was required to “render judgment without delay” because there was no genuine issue of material fact. In light of plaintiff’s own conduct plainly exceeding any arguable negligence by defendant, plaintiff’s case could not proceed under MCL 500.3135(2)(b), and the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary disposition.