## Facts

- Charles Allen, a locomotive engineer, operated a train traveling about 65 mph approaching a railroad grade crossing in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
- A Bloomfield Hills School District bus entered the crossing and attempted to proceed by maneuvering around a lowered gate.
- The train collided with the bus; no children were on board, and the bus driver was severely injured.
- Allen ran back to the scene after stopping the train and learned of the driver’s serious injuries.
- Allen was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) attributed to the collision.
- Plaintiffs presented medical evidence, including a neural scan showing decreased activity in regions of Allen’s brain described as consistent with PTSD, and physician testimony that trauma can change brain chemistry, function, and structure.
- Charles Allen sought noneconomic and excess economic damages; Lisa Allen asserted loss of consortium.

## Issues

1. Whether the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1405, requires proof of a “bodily injury.”
2. Whether PTSD accompanied by objective medical evidence of physical brain changes can constitute a “bodily injury” under MCL 691.1405.
3. Whether plaintiffs could rely on the no-fault “serious impairment of body function” standard in MCL 500.3135 to avoid the “bodily injury” requirement of MCL 691.1405 when suing a governmental entity.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo a grant of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) based on governmental immunity.
- The court held that a plaintiff invoking the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405, must establish a “bodily injury.”
- The court held that plaintiffs produced sufficient objective medical evidence to create a question of fact that Allen suffered a brain injury associated with PTSD and thus a “bodily injury” within MCL 691.1405.
- The court reversed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to the school district and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Governmental agencies are generally immune from tort liability; statutory exceptions must be strictly construed and satisfied according to their terms.
- In suits against governmental entities arising from motor-vehicle operation, the controlling immunity inquiry is whether the plaintiff meets the motor-vehicle exception in MCL 691.1405, including the requirement of “bodily injury.”
- “Bodily injury” in MCL 691.1405 may include psychological conditions when supported by objective medical evidence of physical injury or physical manifestation (e.g., demonstrable brain changes).
- On a (C)(7) motion, courts consider evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; where the record permits a factual dispute about whether the exception applies, summary disposition is improper.
- The no-fault threshold in MCL 500.3135 does not displace the initial requirement, in governmental-defendant cases, to first establish an applicable exception to immunity under the governmental tort liability act.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity requires proof of “bodily injury,” and that PTSD supported by objective medical evidence of physical brain changes can satisfy that requirement, making summary disposition for the governmental defendant improper.


Allen v. Bloomfield Hills Sch. Dist., 760 N.W.2d 811 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008)