Pedestrian Accident Complaint - Michigan

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (PEDESTRIAN COLLISION) — MICHIGAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. General Factual Allegations
5. No-Fault / Threshold Allegations
6. Count I — Negligence (Against Defendant Driver)
7. Count II — Negligence Per Se / Statutory Violation (Crosswalk / Right-of-Way) (Against Defendant Driver)
8. Count III — Owner's Liability / Negligent Entrustment (Against Defendant Owner)
9. Damages
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Jury Demand
12. Reservation of Rights
13. Verification and Signature
14. Certificate of Service
15. Michigan Practice Notes
16. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

Case No. [____________]-NI     Hon. [____________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (PEDESTRIAN COLLISION)

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in this Complaint.

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, states as follows:

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an individual residing in [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Michigan, who at all material times was lawfully traveling on foot as a pedestrian on the public roadways of this State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Driver Defendant") is, upon information and belief, an individual residing in [COUNTY/STATE] who, at all material times, operated the motor vehicle described below.

3. Defendant [OWNER / EMPLOYER NAME] ("Owner Defendant") is [an individual residing in / a corporation or other entity with a principal place of business in] [COUNTY/STATE] and, at all material times, was the titled and/or registered owner of the vehicle operated by Driver Defendant, and/or employed Driver Defendant.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This action arises under Michigan tort law and the Michigan No-Fault Act for personal injuries sustained when Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by a motor vehicle in [CITY/TOWNSHIP], [COUNTY] County, Michigan, on [__/__/____].

5. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to MCL 600.605 because the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

6. Venue is proper in this county under MCL 600.1629(1)(a), the tort-specific venue provision governing personal-injury actions, because the Collision occurred in this county and one or more Defendants resides, has a place of business, or conducts business in this county (with MCL 600.1621 applying only as a residual venue rule under MCL 600.1629(1)(d) if no county satisfies the tort-venue criteria).

4. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully crossing [ROADWAY] [within a marked crosswalk / within an adjacent crosswalk at the signalized intersection] at or near its intersection with [CROSS STREET / LANDMARK], in [CITY/TOWNSHIP], Michigan (the "Collision").

8. At the same time and place, Driver Defendant was operating a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] [passenger vehicle / pickup truck / SUV / commercial vehicle] — a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of MCL 500.3101(1)(i) — owned by Owner Defendant, traveling [northbound / southbound / etc.] on [ROADWAY].

9. Traffic, lighting, roadway, and weather conditions were [describe — e.g., clear, dry, daylight], and [the pedestrian-control signal displayed "WALK" in Plaintiff's favor / no traffic-control signal governed the crossing].

10. The Collision occurred when Driver Defendant [SELECT / DESCRIBE THE MANNER OF COLLISION — e.g., failed to yield to Plaintiff lawfully within the crosswalk; turned [left / right] across Plaintiff's path without yielding; failed to keep a proper lookout; proceeded on a green or right-on-red without yielding to Plaintiff in the adjacent crosswalk; was traveling at an excessive or imprudent speed; was distracted by a mobile device], striking Plaintiff.

11. Although Plaintiff was plainly visible and was lawfully crossing with the right-of-way, Driver Defendant "looked but failed to see" Plaintiff, failed to slow or stop, and failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians lawfully using the roadway.

12. Plaintiff had the right-of-way and was crossing in a lawful, prudent, and careful manner at all material times.

13. As a pedestrian, Plaintiff was wholly unprotected by any vehicle structure, occupant restraint, or crumple zone, and the force of being struck by Driver Defendant's vehicle caused Plaintiff to suffer severe, painful, and permanent bodily injuries, including but not limited to [LIST INJURIES — e.g., orthopedic fractures, traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, internal injuries, degloving / disfiguring lacerations, and permanent scarring].

14. Plaintiff received emergency care at [HOSPITAL / EMS PROVIDER] and has since undergone [SURGERIES / HOSPITALIZATION / REHABILITATION / ONGOING TREATMENT], and will require future medical care.

5. NO-FAULT / THRESHOLD ALLEGATIONS

15. The Collision was a "motor vehicle accident" within the meaning of the No-Fault Act because it involved the use of a motor vehicle (the vehicle operated by Driver Defendant) as a motor vehicle. As a pedestrian who suffered accidental bodily injury while not an occupant of a motor vehicle, Plaintiff is entitled to personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits payable in the order of priority established by MCL 500.3115, and any such claim for first-party benefits is preserved.

16. This Complaint asserts a third-party tort claim against the at-fault Defendants for noneconomic loss and for economic loss in excess of the benefits available under the No-Fault Act.

17. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff has suffered [serious impairment of body function and/or permanent serious disfigurement] within the meaning of MCL 500.3135(1) and (5) — an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects Plaintiff's general ability to lead a normal life — thereby satisfying the tort threshold for recovery of noneconomic damages.

18. Plaintiff further seeks recovery of allowable expenses, work loss, and other economic damages to the extent they exceed the limitations on PIP benefits, as permitted by MCL 500.3135(3)(c).

6. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant Driver)

19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 18 as if fully set forth herein.

20. Driver Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of a motor vehicle, to obey the Michigan Vehicle Code, to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians lawfully using the roadway, to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian lawfully within a crosswalk, and to refrain from conduct endangering others.

21. Driver Defendant breached that duty by, among other things:

• Failing to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff, who was lawfully within the crosswalk;
• Failing to keep a proper and careful lookout for pedestrians;
• Operating the vehicle at an excessive or unsafe speed for conditions;
• Failing to exercise due care to avoid colliding with Plaintiff;
• Driving while distracted or inattentive;
• Failing to slow, stop, or take reasonable evasive action to avoid striking Plaintiff; and
• Otherwise failing to exercise the degree of care that an ordinarily prudent driver would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.

22. Each of the foregoing acts and omissions, separately and in combination, was a direct and proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages described below.

7. COUNT II — NEGLIGENCE PER SE / STATUTORY VIOLATION (CROSSWALK / RIGHT-OF-WAY) (Against Defendant Driver)

23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.

24. The Michigan Vehicle Code imposes specific statutory duties on Driver Defendant for the protection of pedestrians lawfully using the roadway, including, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• MCL 257.612 — at a traffic-control signal, vehicular traffic facing a green indication, and vehicular traffic turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk; a vehicle making a permitted turn on a steady red signal shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk;
• MCL 257.627 — an operator shall not drive at a speed greater than that which is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing, including pedestrians; and/or
• MCL 257.676 — duties regarding right-of-way at through highways and stop intersections, as applicable.

25. Plaintiff is within the class of persons the foregoing statutes were enacted to protect, and the Collision is the type of harm those statutes were designed to prevent.

26. Driver Defendant violated [CITE THE SPECIFIC SECTION(S) APPLICABLE], and was cited for [TRAFFIC CITATION, IF ANY]. Such violation constitutes negligence per se and/or is evidence of negligence under Michigan law, and was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

8. COUNT III — OWNER'S LIABILITY / NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (Against Defendant Owner)

27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 as if fully set forth herein.

28. At the time of the Collision, the subject vehicle was being operated with the express or implied knowledge and consent of Owner Defendant. Owner Defendant is therefore liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle pursuant to the owner-liability statute, MCL 257.401.

29. In the alternative, Owner Defendant negligently entrusted the subject vehicle to Driver Defendant when Owner Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that Driver Defendant was an incompetent, inexperienced, reckless, or otherwise unfit driver; and/or Driver Defendant was operating the vehicle as the agent, servant, or employee of Owner Defendant within the scope of that agency or employment, rendering Owner Defendant vicariously liable under respondeat superior.

30. Owner Defendant's statutory and/or common-law liability was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

9. DAMAGES

31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and seeks recovery of the following:

• Noneconomic damages — physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, fright and shock, disability, denial of social pleasure and enjoyment, embarrassment, humiliation, and mortification, past and future;
• Permanent physical impairment and disfigurement, including disfiguring scarring;
• Excess economic damages — allowable medical and rehabilitation expenses, attendant care, work loss, and other economic loss in excess of the No-Fault benefit limitations;
• Past and future medical and life-care expenses to be proven at trial; and
• Lost earnings and loss of earning capacity.

32. Plaintiff pleads each category of damage separately and in the alternative, in an amount in excess of $25,000 to be determined by the trier of fact.

10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against the Defendants, jointly and/or severally as the law allows, as follows:

• A. Damages in whatever amount in excess of $25,000 Plaintiff is found to be entitled;
• B. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013;
• C. Costs, including statutory, taxable, and actual costs and expert-witness fees as allowed by MCR 2.625 and applicable law; and
• D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

11. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff will file a separate written jury demand and pay the jury fee within the time required by MCR 2.508(B)(1). This Complaint alone is not the jury demand.

12. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint pursuant to MCR 2.118 to add or substitute parties, to assert additional claims (including any first-party PIP claim), and to conform the pleadings to the evidence as discovery proceeds. Plaintiff denies any comparative fault and pleads that any fault attributable to Plaintiff, if any, was 50% or less and does not bar recovery of noneconomic damages under MCL 600.2959 and MCL 500.3135(2)(b).

13. VERIFICATION AND SIGNATURE

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME] (P[________])

[LAW FIRM NAME]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [___-___-____]

Email: [EMAIL]

Dated: [__/__/____]

VERIFICATION (MCR 1.109(D)(3)). I declare, under the penalties of perjury, that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that its factual statements are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

Date: [__/__/____]     [________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME], Plaintiff

14. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____], I served (or will cause to be served with the summons) a copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT upon the Defendant(s) at the address(es) listed above by [personal service / certified mail under MCR 2.105 / the court's electronic-filing system upon counsel of record].

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME] (P[________])

15. MICHIGAN PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. An action for injury to a person must be commenced within three years after the claim accrues. MCL 600.5805. A first-party PIP claim must generally be commenced within one year of the date of accident (subject to the one-year-back rule), MCL 500.3145, so the no-fault clock differs from the tort clock — track both.
• Pedestrian PIP — the central no-fault point. A pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle IS injured in a "motor vehicle accident" and may recover PIP benefits. Priority for a non-occupant is set by MCL 500.3115; after the 2019 reforms the order generally begins with the pedestrian's own insurer, then a spouse's, then a resident relative's, then the insurer of the owner/operator of the involved vehicle, and finally the Assigned Claims Plan. Confirm the priority order and notice deadlines at intake. (Note: an out-of-state pedestrian's eligibility turns on MCL 500.3163; verify residency-based coverage.)
• Tort threshold (MCL 500.3135). Noneconomic damages are recoverable only on proof of death, permanent serious disfigurement, or "serious impairment of body function" — an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affecting the person's general ability to lead a normal life. Plead the threshold expressly (¶ 17) and develop objective medical proof.
• Modified comparative fault (more-than-50% bar). Under MCL 600.2959 and MCL 500.3135(2)(b), noneconomic damages are barred if the pedestrian is more than 50% at fault, and otherwise reduced in proportion to fault.
• Crosswalk / right-of-way framework. MCL 257.612 governs the driver's duty to yield to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk at signalized intersections (including on permitted turns); MCL 257.655 governs the pedestrian's own duties when sidewalks are or are not provided. Many crossings are also governed by local pedestrian-crossing ordinances and the Uniform Traffic Code rules — identify the controlling provision for the specific crossing.
• Owner liability. MCL 257.401 makes the vehicle owner liable for injuries caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle with the owner's consent (statutory presumption of consent for family members).
• Service of process. Service is governed by MCR 2.105.

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Michigan Compiled Laws — https://www.legislature.mi.gov
• MCL 600.5805 (limitations) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-5805
• MCL 600.2959 (comparative fault) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-2959
• MCL 500.3115 (PIP priority — non-occupant / pedestrian) — https://law.justia.com/codes/michigan/chapter-500/act-218-of-1956/
• MCL 500.3135 (tort threshold; serious impairment) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-500-3135
• MCL 257.612 (signal; yield to pedestrians in adjacent crosswalk) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-257-612
• MCL 257.655 (pedestrians on roadways / sidewalks) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-257-655
• MCL 257.627 (speed; reasonable and prudent)
• MCL 257.401 (owner liability) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-257-401
• Zeni v. Anderson, 397 Mich. 117 (1976) (statutory violation as evidence of negligence)
• Michigan Court Rules (MCR 1.109, 2.105, 2.113, 2.118, 2.508, 2.625)

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Michigan must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.