Biegas v. Quickway Carriers, Inc.
573 F.3d 365 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The apportionment of comparative fault is a question of fact for the jury, and a court may not grant summary judgment ruling that one party is more than fifty percent at fault as a matter of law when evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could conclude otherwise.
Facts:
- Richard Biegas was driving his dump truck, which was towing a trailer loaded with a backhoe, when the backhoe struck a highway overpass.
- Biegas immediately pulled over and stopped his truck on the shoulder of the highway to inspect for damage.
- He parked the truck very close to the traffic lane, with its driver-side mirror extending approximately three-and-one-half inches into the roadway, despite there being an additional two feet of paved shoulder available to the right.
- Biegas and his employee, Nick Cohen, exited the truck to check for damage at the rear of the trailer.
- Lonnie Dailey, driving a tractor-trailer for Quickway, was traveling in the right lane between fifty-five and fifty-eight miles per hour, exceeding the fifty-five-mile-per-hour speed limit for trucks.
- Dailey was following another tractor-trailer by only about 150 feet.
- As Dailey's tractor-trailer passed Biegas's parked vehicle, it crossed over the white fog line onto the shoulder.
- Dailey's tractor-trailer struck both Biegas's vehicle and Biegas himself, who was standing at least partially in the traffic lane, resulting in Biegas's death.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Richard Biegas filed a negligence complaint against Quickway in a Michigan state court.
- Quickway removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Quickway moved for partial summary judgment, arguing Biegas was more than fifty percent at fault as a matter of law.
- The district court granted Quickway's motion for partial summary judgment.
- The case proceeded to trial, where the jury was instructed that it must apportion at least fifty-one percent of the fault to Biegas.
- The jury returned a verdict allocating fifty-three percent of the fault to Biegas and forty-seven percent to Quickway.
- The district court entered a final judgment consistent with the verdict, limiting the Estate's recovery to economic damages.
- The Estate's motion for a new trial was denied by the district court.
- The Estate, as appellant, appealed the partial summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, with Quickway as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court err by granting partial summary judgment and ruling as a matter of law that a plaintiff was more than fifty percent comparatively negligent for an accident when there is evidence that the defendant's driver was also negligent by speeding, following another vehicle too closely, and crossing over the fog line?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
Yes. The district court erred by ruling as a matter of law that the plaintiff was more than fifty percent at fault. The apportionment of comparative fault is a question for the jury, and summary judgment is only appropriate in exceptional negligence cases where a reasonable juror could not find otherwise. Here, evidence showed that the defendant's driver, Dailey, was negligent by speeding, following too closely, and drifting over the fog line onto the shoulder. A reasonable jury, weighing Dailey's negligence against Biegas's negligence in parking too close to the lane and stepping into traffic, could have concluded that Dailey's fault was equal to or greater than Biegas's. Therefore, the issue of fault allocation should have been left entirely to the jury.
Dissenting - Friedman, J.
No. The district court's error in instructing the jury was harmless and does not warrant a new trial. The jury found Biegas to be fifty-three percent at fault, which was more than the fifty-one percent minimum the judge's instruction required. This indicates the jury made an independent determination that Biegas's fault exceeded the threshold, rather than being forced to a minimum value. It is merely speculation to assume that without the erroneous instruction, the jury would have assessed Biegas's fault at less than fifty-one percent; the likelihood is too slim to justify concluding the error was prejudicial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that comparative negligence is a quintessential issue of fact reserved for the jury. The court's holding cautions trial judges against usurping the jury's role by granting summary judgment on the allocation of fault, except in the clearest of cases where no reasonable person could disagree. This precedent strengthens the position of plaintiffs in cases involving mutual negligence, ensuring that questions of degree and apportionment will typically proceed to trial rather than being decided as a matter of law. It highlights the high bar for summary judgment in negligence actions where the conduct of both parties contributed to the harm.
Unlock the full brief for Biegas v. Quickway Carriers, Inc.