July 17, 2026
/
seva firm
,
By Pratheep Sevanthinathan, Esq. The Seva Law Firm
Case: Serratos v. Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co., No. 374951 (Mich. Ct. App. July 17, 2026) (Unpublished)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Panel: Gadola, C.J., and Boonstra and Cameron, JJ.
Decision: Affirmed — Per Curiam
Lower Court: Oakland Circuit Court, Case No. 2024-206447-NI
Read the full opinion here: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4a096f/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/20260717_c374951_33_374951.opn.pdf
- Introduction
The Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed summary disposition in favor of a driver who struck a 13-year-old pedestrian who darted out from between stopped vehicles into an active lane of traffic. In Serratos v. Wall, the Court held that the evidence established as a matter of law that the driver was not negligent and that the sudden emergency doctrine shielded her from liability. The decision also addressed an important procedural issue: the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider the plaintiff’s untimely supplemental response to the summary disposition motion. This case serves as a reminder that while pedestrian accidents are tragic, liability does not automatically follow from the occurrence of an accident — and that procedural deadlines in litigation carry real consequences.
- Facts
On November 22, 2022, thirteen-year-old RS was walking along a sidewalk near his school in Waterford, Michigan. He saw his neighbor’s car parked in a nearby church parking lot and decided to cut across Civic Center Drive rather than use the crosswalk. RS walked between two large vehicles that were stopped at a red light and stepped into the opposite lane of traffic without stopping. He did not see the oncoming pickup truck driven by Donna Wall until a “split second” before impact. The driver’s-side corner of the truck struck RS on his right side.
Donna Wall had just completed a left turn onto Civic Center Drive. She testified that she was traveling approximately 15 miles per hour — well below the 25 mph speed limit — and that her lane was clear until RS suddenly appeared from between the line of stopped cars. She immediately slammed on her brakes but could not stop in time. After the collision, RS told her, “I’m sorry. I didn’t see you.”
Officer Kolton Decker investigated the accident and concluded that RS had “failed to yield” — meaning RS was at fault for the accident. No citation was issued to RS because of his age. No witnesses reported that Donna had been speeding.
RS suffered a concussion, bruised wrists and knees, fluid in his knees, and a fractured tailbone. Plaintiff filed a negligence claim against Donna Wall and her husband Gary (the vehicle’s owner) in March 2024.
The defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiff’s counsel failed to file a substantive response by the deadline, instead filing a brief that only requested the court defer ruling until a vehicle inspection — scheduled to begin on the response deadline itself — could be completed. A more substantive response was filed one day late. The trial court granted summary disposition without a hearing, noting plaintiff had failed to file a substantive response. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Issues
The Court of Appeals addressed two key issues:
First, whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to consider plaintiff’s untimely supplemental response to the summary disposition motion.
Second, whether the trial court properly granted summary disposition on the merits — specifically, whether the evidence established as a matter of law that the driver was not negligent and whether the sudden emergency doctrine applied.
- Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on both issues.
On the procedural question, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the late-filed response. Under MCR 2.116(G)(1)(a)(ii), a response to a summary disposition motion must be filed at least seven days before the hearing. Plaintiff’s initial response, filed on the deadline, did not address the merits at all. The supplemental response filed one day later was essentially an untimely amendment that required leave of court, which plaintiff never sought. The Court noted that plaintiff’s claim that the vehicle inspection prevented a substantive response was undermined by the fact that a more detailed response was filed just one day later — proving the arguments could have been raised on time. The Court also emphasized that neither response contained a proper motion to adjourn or motion for leave to file a supplemental brief.
On the merits, the Court held that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law for two independent reasons:
No evidence of negligence. Donna Wall was driving approximately 15 miles per hour in a 25 mph zone, had just completed a left turn, and had a clear lane of travel. There was no admissible evidence that she was speeding, that she failed to keep a proper lookout, or that she violated any traffic law. The Court reaffirmed the longstanding principle from Kerr v. City of Detroit (1931) that the mere occurrence of an accident is insufficient to impose liability.
The sudden emergency doctrine. The Court applied the doctrine from Vsetula v. Whitmyer (1991) and Vander Laan v. Miedema (1971), holding that RS darting out from between stopped vehicles constituted an “unsuspected” hazard — the kind of sudden, totally unexpected peril that the doctrine was designed to address. Donna’s lane was clear until the moment RS appeared, and her instinctive reaction was to brake immediately. Even if, in hindsight, she could have swerved or been driving even more slowly, “the law expects prudence, not perfection.” The sudden emergency doctrine protected her from liability based on what might have been a better response in retrospect.
- Conclusion
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendants. Because the driver was not negligent as a matter of law and the sudden emergency doctrine applied, the Court did not need to reach the defendants’ additional arguments — including that the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault under Michigan’s comparative negligence statute, or that the plaintiff failed to establish a serious impairment of body function under MCL 500.3135. Gary Wall, the vehicle’s owner, was also absolved of liability under MCL 257.401(1) because there was no negligent operation of the vehicle.
- What Does This Mean for Our Clients?
This decision addresses important issues that arise frequently in Michigan auto accident and pedestrian injury cases. Here is what you should know:
Pedestrians are not automatically entitled to recovery just because they were hit by a vehicle. Michigan law requires that a plaintiff prove the driver was actually negligent — that the driver breached a duty of care. In this case, every piece of evidence showed the driver was operating her vehicle carefully and within the speed limit. The accident happened because a child darted into traffic, not because the driver did anything wrong.
The sudden emergency doctrine remains a powerful defense. When a driver is confronted with an unexpected hazard — like a pedestrian suddenly appearing from between stopped cars — the law does not require the driver to react perfectly. It only requires a reasonable response under the circumstances. Slamming on the brakes is exactly what you would expect a careful driver to do. This doctrine can be a complete defense to a negligence claim, and it is particularly relevant in cases involving pedestrians or objects entering a driver’s lane without warning.
Procedural deadlines matter — missing them can be fatal to your case. Perhaps the most cautionary aspect of this decision is what happened at the trial court level. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to file a substantive response to the summary disposition motion on time, and the trial court ruled without considering the late-filed brief. The Court of Appeals upheld that decision. This is a stark reminder that the rules of civil procedure exist for a reason, and failing to comply with filing deadlines can result in losing your case regardless of its merits.
If you have been injured as a pedestrian, get experienced legal representation immediately. The strength of a pedestrian injury case depends entirely on the facts — was the driver speeding, distracted, or otherwise negligent? Were there witnesses? What does the crash report say? These are questions that need to be investigated thoroughly and early. Cases involving children present additional considerations, including questions about comparative fault and the serious impairment threshold under Michigan’s no-fault law.
If you or a family member has been injured in a pedestrian accident or any motor vehicle accident, contact The Seva Law Firm. We understand the complexities of Michigan no-fault law and negligence litigation, and we will fight to protect your rights.
Pratheep Sevanthinathan is the owner and managing attorney of The Seva Law Firm, located at 100 W. Big Beaver Rd, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084. He can be reached at (248) 385-5704.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.