## Facts

- Eleanor K. Zeni, a 56-year-old registered nurse, walked to work on a snowy morning in Marquette, Michigan.
- Snow conditions were severe; sidewalks were snow-covered, and a well-used pedestrian snowpath existed along the roadway.
- Zeni walked along the snowpath with her back to oncoming traffic rather than using the sidewalk.
- Karen Anderson, a college student, drove within the speed limit in a steady stream of traffic on the same street.
- Testimony conflicted about whether Anderson’s windshield was adequately cleared and whether she drove too close to the curb.
- Anderson’s vehicle struck Zeni on the passenger side near the roadway edge; evidence placed blood stains in the roadway area.
- Zeni sustained serious head injuries, including a subdural hematoma and retrograde amnesia.
- Defendants argued Zeni violated Michigan’s pedestrian statute requiring sidewalk use when available and, if walking on the roadway, walking facing traffic.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff’s violation of a safety statute constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law, or instead creates only a rebuttable inference of negligence.
2. Whether Michigan Standard Jury Instruction 14.01 on last clear chance (subsequent negligence) accurately stated Michigan law and, if imperfect, whether it required a new trial.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court judgment for Zeni, reinstating the jury verdict.
- The Court held statutory violation by either party creates a prima facie case permitting an inference of negligence, which may be rebutted by a legally sufficient excuse.
- The Court concluded the jury could find Zeni’s statutory violation excused based on the snowy, potentially hazardous sidewalk conditions and practical travel circumstances.
- The Court approved the Restatement (Second) of Torts approach to last clear chance as consistent with Michigan law.
- The Court held that, on these facts, use of SJI 14.01 was sufficiently accurate when read as a whole, and any imperfections were not prejudicial enough to warrant a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Violation of a safety statute creates a prima facie inference of negligence; it is not automatic negligence per se.
- The factfinder may consider whether a legally sufficient excuse rebuts the inference arising from a statutory violation.
- Last clear chance (subsequent negligence) may permit recovery despite plaintiff negligence when the defendant, knowing or having reason to know of the plaintiff’s peril, fails to use reasonable care to avoid harm.
- Jury instructions are assessed in their entirety; a substantially correct instruction will not justify a new trial absent prejudicial misstatement or likely juror confusion affecting the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court held that statutory violations in negligence cases establish a prima facie inference rebuttable by excuse, and it affirmed a plaintiff’s verdict where evidence supported an excused statutory breach and where the last clear chance instruction, though imperfect, was adequate and nonprejudicial in context.


Zeni v. Anderson, 397 Mich. 117, 243 N.W.2d 270 (Mich. 1976)