LANSING, Mich. (Legal Newsline) – The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a summary disposition decision in the case of a taxi passenger who died of hypothermia after voluntarily leaving the taxi.
Acting in her position as Brian Bussey’s personal representative, Cheryl Mersino appealed an Oakland Circuit Court decision to grant summary disposition in favor of the defendants, ABC Cab, ABC Transportation and Gerald Page.
However, the appeals court affirmed the trial court decision Sept. 20.
The case stems from the events surround Bussey’s death in November 2014. The 49-year-old had been at a bar in Farmington when a bartender called a cab to drive him home, the decision states.
Page, a taxi driver, picked Bussey up at the bar around 9 p.m.
“While Page was stopped at a traffic light, Bussey, who was intoxicated, began to fumble with the door handle,” the court decision stated.
“Bussey voluntarily opened the door, paused and ran,” the ruling states.
Page looked for Bussey for a few minutes and even waited at a parking lot in a strip mall in the direction that Bussey had run. However, Bussey did not return to the cab and Page left.
“Bussey’s body was discovered about four days later in a nearby wooded area,” the court decision stated.
A medical examiner stated Bussey died from hypothermia the morning after he had ditched the cab ride.
“Plaintiff filed this wrongful death action against defendants, alleging that defendants breached their duty of care Owens to Bussey,” Justices Peter D. O’Connell, Mark J. Cavanagh, and Deborah A. Servitto wrote in their decision.
The trial court granted a motion for summary disposition filed by the defendants.
“The trial court agreed with defendants that... Bussey’s intoxication precluded any claim, and plaintiff could not establish proximate cause,” the court decision stated.
The appeals court stated there needed to be several criteria meet to prove negligence; duty, breach of duty, causation and damages.
“Generally, a person does not have a legal duty to aid or protect another person,” the decision states. “However, such a duty may arise if the parties have a ‘special relationship’ including the relationship between a common carrier and a passenger."
The decision also notes that “the standard of care required is the amount of care that a reasonable prudent carrier would exercise under the circumstances.”
While the plaintiff argues there was a special relationship, the defendants disagree about the scope and duration of that duty.
“Defendants claim that the duty only related the manner of driving and safety of the vehicle and that any duty ended when Bussey voluntarily left the vehicle. We agree with the defendants,” the court decision stated.
“Once Bussey voluntarily got out of the taxi, he ended the carrier-passenger relationship, and defendants no longer owned him a duty of care as a matter of law,” the decision states.
However, the plaintiff argued that because of Bussey’s intoxication, the cab company owed him a “higher duty than reasonable care,” they explained.
“For example, plaintiff argues that Page should have tried to discourage or prevent Bussey from getting out of the taxi and should have called for help after Bussey exited,” the court decision stated.
The judges wrote that they disagreed.
“Even if Page knew that Bussey was intoxicated, Page, who did not cause Bussey’s intoxication, had no duty to take affirmative action, such as warning or restraining Bussey for his protection. Moreover, Bussey’s death was not foreseeable.”
“Bussey ran towards a small field in the direction of a strip mall with open businesses, including a supermarket. Therefore, it was not foreseeable that Bussey would freeze to death in nearby woods the following morning,” the court decision stated. “Further, asking taxi drivers to physically restrain intoxicated passengers or to call the police when an intoxicated passenger unexpectedly, but voluntarily, get out of the taxi would be overly burdensome to taxi drivers.”