Bus accident exception for City

The court held that even if the facts were exactly as asserted by the defendant-City Department of Sanitation, and the garbage truck was temporarily stopped on the road when the collision occurred, the temporary stops on the road to pick up garbage are included in the meaning of "operation" of a garbage truck and the motor vehicle exception to government immunity applied. Thus, the court concluded that summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) was not warranted where the motor vehicle exception would apply regardless of whether the facts were as plaintiff contended, or as defendant contended. The court affirmed the trial court's order denying the City department's motion for summary disposition. The case arose from a collision between a school bus and a garbage truck that injured the minor plaintiff, a passenger on the school bus. On the day of the incident, an employee of the City department (D) and his partner (S) were collecting garbage. D drove the truck, making periodic brief stops in the right lane to allow S to collect the garbage and put it into the back of the truck. As they collected garbage, a school bus approached from behind on the left side of the garbage truck, and then according to D, as it passed the truck, merged into the lane in which the garbage truck was sitting. D did not feel the impact, but recalled that he thought the bus nearly hit the truck. D and S continued their garbage route. About two hours later, D got a call from his supervisor, who told him that he was involved in an accident with the school bus. D said that the truck was running, and ready to proceed to the next stop, but it was not moving at the time of the collision and that the bus ran into the garbage truck. S described the events slightly differently as he was at the back of the truck, but believed that the truck was stopped at the time of the collision. The bus driver (B) stated that he felt a bump as he drove past the garbage truck. A student on the bus told him that the bus was hit. He continued to drive the bus, but stopped and inspected the bus - it was damaged in the rear. He wrote an accident report that day, in which he stated that the truck "started to take off and clipped the bus." The minor plaintiff also said that the truck moved forward and hit the bus. Several students on the bus wrote statements. Some statements supported plaintiff's contention that the garbage truck was moving at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs sued. Defendant raised the defense of governmental immunity. The trial court denied defendants' motion for summary disposition based on the defense due to the conflicting testimony as to whether the truck was moving at the time of the incident. The parties disputed whether the use of a garbage truck fell within the meaning of "negligent operation." They also disputed whether the requirement that the truck be in operation required the truck to have been moving at the time of the collision, or whether a stationary vehicle may be operating within the meaning of the statute. Affirmed.