Klanseck v. Anderson Sales & Service, Inc
393 N.W.2d 356, 426 Mich. 78 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where evidence raises an issue of a driver's incompetence or inexperience as a causal factor in an accident, a jury may be instructed to infer negligence from the driver's violation of a licensing statute, with the jury ultimately determining proximate cause. Furthermore, a jury instruction on a plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages is warranted if there is evidence, even scant, that the plaintiff failed to follow recommended medical treatment.
Facts:
- On May 27, 1976, Stephen Klanseck purchased a Honda GL 1000 motorcycle from Anderson Sales & Service, Inc.
- While Stephen Klanseck was driving the new motorcycle home, the machine began to "fishtail," leading him to apply the brakes, slide, and crash, resulting in injuries.
- Following the accident, it was discovered the front tire had deflated, and an expert later testified the puncture resulted from improper placement of a rubber strip causing contact between the tube and metal spokes.
- Stephen Klanseck had limited prior motorcycle experience, having ridden a small dirt bike for approximately ten hours and a friend's Honda GL 1000 for three hours.
- Stephen Klanseck admitted knowing he was legally required to obtain a motorcycle endorsement on his driver's license but had not done so at the time of the accident.
- Stephen Klanseck stated he knew the proper response to a blowout was to allow the motorcycle to coast to a stop without applying brakes, but he did not follow this procedure, explaining he did not realize the tire was losing air pressure.
- Experienced motorcycle riders presented by Anderson Sales & Service, Inc. testified that a front tire blowout would not cause a fall if the machine were handled properly.
- Stephen Klanseck's injuries, including a fractured right wrist and chronic pain, interfered with his work as an auto mechanic and allegedly resulted in a serious mental disorder.
- Approximately one year after the accident, Stephen Klanseck's neurologist, Dr. Gary W. Roat, recommended additional diagnostic tests, but Stephen Klanseck decided against them unless his symptoms worsened.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Klanseck brought an action against Anderson Sales & Service, Inc. in a trial court (court of first instance) seeking damages for injuries suffered in a motorcycle accident.
- The jury in the trial court found both defendants negligent and in breach of implied warranties, assessing $40,000 in damages, which was then reduced to $16,000 due to the jury's finding of sixty percent comparative negligence on the part of Stephen Klanseck.
- Stephen Klanseck objected to the trial court's instructions on comparative negligence and the duty to mitigate damages.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's decision (136 Mich App 75; 356 NW2d 275 (1984)).
- The Supreme Court of Michigan granted leave to appeal on June 26, 1985 (422 Mich 936 (1985)).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a trial court err by instructing a jury that it may infer negligence from a plaintiff's failure to obtain a motorcycle endorsement, as required by statute, when evidence suggests the driver's competence or inexperience was a causal factor in the accident? 2. Does a trial court err by instructing a jury on a plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages when there is evidence that the plaintiff did not follow their physician's recommended course of action?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, C.J.
Yes, a trial court does not err by instructing a jury that it may infer negligence from a plaintiff's failure to obtain a motorcycle endorsement if evidence suggests the driver's competence or experience was a causal factor in the accident, leaving the ultimate determination of proximate cause to the jury. Yes, a trial court does not err by instructing a jury on a plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages when there is evidence that the plaintiff did not follow their physician's recommended course of action. Regarding the licensing statute, the court reiterated Michigan's rule that evidence of a penal statute violation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, as established in Zeni v Anderson. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence of a legally sufficient excuse, after which the jury determines if the negligence was a proximate cause. The court applied the relevance factors from Michigan Standard Jury Instruction 12.01: 1) the statute protects against the result of the violation, 2) the plaintiff is within the protected class, and 3) the evidence supports finding the violation was a proximate contributing cause. The court found the motorcycle licensing statute intended to protect against accidents by incompetent drivers, placing Klanseck within the protected class. Crucially, because Anderson Sales & Service, Inc. presented evidence challenging Klanseck's competence and experience in handling a blowout, his lack of an endorsement was deemed relevant as a potential causal factor, distinguishing this case from others where licensing violations lacked a causal link (citing Brackin v Boles). Regarding the mitigation of damages, the court affirmed the settled principle that an injured party has a duty to exercise reasonable care to minimize damages, including obtaining proper medical or surgical treatment (Poikanen v Thomas Furnace Co; Smith v Jones). While acknowledging that the evidence of Klanseck's failure to mitigate was "weak," the testimony from Dr. Roat that Klanseck declined recommended diagnostic tests unless his symptoms worsened was sufficient to raise an issue for the jury's decision. The court cited McKinch v Dixon for the proposition that even scant evidence can support a jury instruction where it raises an issue for decision.
Dissenting - Levin, J.
No, the instruction was erroneous because it permitted the jury to infer negligence solely from the lack of a license, even if the cyclist operated the motorcycle with due care at the time of the accident. Justice Levin argued that the instruction improperly allowed the jury to find negligence based on the mere fact that the plaintiff did not have a license (which implied a lack of skills to obtain one), rather than focusing on whether he actually operated the motorcycle negligently. He contended that if Stephen Klanseck, in fact, operated the motorcycle with due care at the time of the accident, the jury should not have been permitted to find him negligent based solely on his failure to possess the required endorsement.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the rebuttable presumption of negligence arising from statutory violations in Michigan, particularly concerning licensing requirements. It emphasizes that for a licensing violation to be admissible as evidence of negligence, a specific causal connection between the lack of licensure and the accident must be established, often by placing the driver's competence or experience directly at issue. The decision also reinforces the principle that even minimal evidence can justify a jury instruction on the duty to mitigate damages, highlighting the importance of evidentiary sufficiency in guiding jury deliberations. Future cases will likely scrutinize the standard of 'evidence raising an issue regarding incompetence or inexperience' when similar licensing violations are alleged.
