McDuffie-Connor v. Neal: Post-Accident Mechanical Findings as Evidence & the Re-Empowered Role of the Fact-Finder in Michigan Negligence Litigation

1. Introduction

In Estate of William Howard McDuffie-Connor v. Scott M. Neal & NSS Construction, Inc., the Michigan Supreme Court revisited a fatal motor-vehicle collision involving a dump truck operated by employee-driver Scott Neal and the decedent’s car. The plaintiff—Chandra McDuffie, personal representative of the decedent’s estate—asserted claims of negligence, statutory owner liability, and wrongful death.

Two trial-court rulings were at stake:

Denial of NSS Construction’s motion for summary disposition (MCR 2.116(C)(10)); and
Grant of plaintiff’s sanctions motion for spoliation of employment and maintenance records.

The Court of Appeals (in a 2-1 decision) had vacated both rulings and ordered judgment for the defense. On further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, thereby restoring the dispute to a fact-finder and clarifying several important principles governing evidence, duty, comparative fault, and spoliation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Summary Disposition Reversed: The Court held that genuine issues of material fact—particularly whether the truck’s turn signals malfunctioned before the crash—preclude summary disposition.
Comparative Fault Reserved for Jury: Even if the decedent improperly passed on the right, reasonable jurors could still find the defendant up to or over 50 % at fault; accordingly, the plaintiff is not automatically barred from recovery.
Driver’s Duty Not Eliminated: The Court rejected the argument that Neal owed no duty to anticipate a right-side pass; whether the hazard was perceptible is a factual question.
Spoliation Sanctions Vacated & Remanded: The lower court failed to make findings on materiality and the duty to preserve records. Those issues must be decided on remand.

3. In-Depth Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 504 Mich 152 (2019) – Reaffirmed de novo review of summary-disposition orders.
Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) – Established that a court must view admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich 153 (1994) – Distinguished between permissible inferences and impermissible speculation when evaluating causation.
Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co., 489 Mich 157 (2011); Zarzecki v. Hatch, 347 Mich 138 (1956) – Articulated the elements of negligence and the duty of ordinary care.
Zeni v. Anderson, 397 Mich 117 (1976); Klanseck v. Anderson Sales & Serv., 426 Mich 78 (1986) – Explained how statutory violations can create rebuttable presumptions of negligence.
Ray v. Swager, 501 Mich 52 (2017) – Defined foreseeability within proximate-cause analysis.
Huggins v. Scripter, 469 Mich 898 (2003) – Guided application of Michigan’s comparative-fault scheme to auto cases.
Briggs v. Knapp, 513 Mich 857 (2023) – Addressed circumstances where a driver has no duty to anticipate an unexpected hazard; distinguished here.
Brenner v. Kolk, 226 Mich App 149 (1997); Teel v. Meredith, 284 Mich App 660 (2009) – Provided the analytic framework for spoliation sanctions (materiality + duty to preserve).

Collectively, these authorities guided the Court’s conclusion that (i) factual disputes are for jurors, not judges, (ii) statutory non-compliance (e.g., defective turn signals) can support negligence, and (iii) spoliation sanctions require specific findings.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Post-Accident Mechanical Defects as Evidence

Police inspection six days after the crash revealed that all four turn signals illuminated but did not blink and that five brakes were out of adjustment. Relying on expert affidavits (a collision reconstructionist and a certified CDL examiner), the Court held it reasonable to infer the defects existed before impact, thus directly undermining the defense theory that the signals worked properly. Dispositive weight was given to Maiden and El-Khalil: evidence must be evaluated most favorably to the non-movant, and credibility contests cannot be resolved on summary disposition.

3.2.2 Breach, Statutory Negligence & Causation

By combining the turn-signal evidence with MCL 257.642(1)(a) (lane change) and MCL 257.648(1) (signal before turning), the Court concluded that a jury could find statutory violations, thereby creating a rebuttable presumption of negligence (Zeni; Klanseck). On causation, the Court referenced Skinner: it is not speculative to infer that a constant (non-blinking) light may suggest to a following driver that the truck intends to stop, not turn.

3.2.3 Comparative Fault and Michigan’s No-Fault Act

Under MCL 500.3135(2)(b), a plaintiff who is not >50 % at fault may recover noneconomic damages. Whether the decedent’s decision to pass on the right renders him more than 50 % at fault remains a matter of fact. The Court pointed to the crash video and conflicting testimony to show that multiple reasonable allocations exist, echoing the dissent below (Judge Hood) and the Supreme Court’s prior guidance in Huggins.

3.2.4 Duty to Anticipate Right-Side Passing

Citing Briggs, NSS argued no duty existed to anticipate the decedent’s maneuver. The Court rejected the analogy: unlike a dark-clad pedestrian entering a highway at night, a car traveling in a parking lane— moments after the truck passed it—could be visible and foreseeable. The visibility assessment is fact-dependent.

3.2.5 Spoliation Doctrine Clarified

The trial court sanctioned NSS for discarding driver-qualification, maintenance, and disciplinary records. However, it failed to:

Specify why the lost records were material to liability or damages; and
Determine whether NSS’s preservation duty had arisen (pre- or post-litigation).

Guided by Brenner and Teel, the Supreme Court vacated the sanction and instructed the trial court to make explicit findings on those elements.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

Broader Use of Post-Crash Inspections: Litigants may now rely more confidently on post-accident mechanical findings to establish pre-accident defects, so long as expert testimony supports reasonableness of the inference. Expect increased discovery requests for police and DOT inspections.
Heightened Maintenance & Record-Keeping Duties for Commercial Carriers: The Court’s willingness to revisit spoliation signals stricter scrutiny of carriers that destroy or fail to preserve safety documents.
Comparative-Fault Analyses Likely to Reach Juries: Trial courts must tread carefully before dismissing negligence suits on (C)(10) motions whenever dual theories of fault remain plausible.
Clarification of Driver Duty: Operators cannot rely on narrow “unforeseeable hazard” doctrines where video or circumstantial evidence suggests a hazard could have been perceived.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Disposition (MCR 2.116(C)(10)): A pre-trial motion arguing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Courts must view evidence most favorably to the non-movant.
Comparative Fault: A system apportioning damages in proportion to each party’s percentage of fault. In Michigan auto cases, recovery is barred only if a plaintiff is >50 % at fault.
Spoliation of Evidence: The destruction or failure to preserve relevant evidence. Courts may sanction the responsible party, but only after finding (1) the evidence was material and (2) a duty to preserve existed when the evidence was lost.
Statutory Negligence: Violation of a safety statute can create a rebuttable presumption of negligence, shifting the evidentiary burden to the defendant.
Owner Liability (MCL 257.401): The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for injuries caused by negligent operation if the vehicle was driven with the owner’s knowledge or consent.

5. Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in McDuffie-Connor v. Neal strengthens the hands of plaintiffs facing motions for summary disposition where credible disputes exist over mechanical defects, driver conduct, or comparative fault. It confirms that:

Post-accident mechanical inspections—when supported by expert analysis—can create triable questions of fact.
Judges must resist weighing credibility on paper; that role belongs to the jury.
Comparative-fault determinations in automotive negligence cases are rarely suitable for early dismissal.
Spoliation sanctions demand explicit findings on both materiality and the duty to preserve.

Going forward, commercial carriers, insurers, and litigators should anticipate closer judicial scrutiny of maintenance practices and record retention, and they should prepare to litigate, rather than summarily dispose of, fact-intensive negligence claims. The decision thus recalibrates the balance between judicial efficiency and the constitutional right to a jury trial, reaffirming the latter’s primacy in Michigan tort litigation.