Allen v. Bloomfield Hills School District
Michigan Court of Appeals
760 N.W.2d 811 (2008)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
A bus being driven for Bloomfield Hills School District (the district) (defendant) attempted to swerve through a lowered railroad-crossing gate as a train approached. The bus was struck by the train. The train operator, Charles Allen (plaintiff), stopped the train and ran to the scene of the accident. No children were on the bus at the time, but the bus driver was severely injured. Afterward, Charles was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from the accident. A neural scan revealed decreased activity in the frontal lobe and below the cortex of Charles’s brain—a change in brain structure consistent with PTSD. Charles and his wife, Lisa Allen (plaintiff), sued the district for noneconomic damages. Lisa also filed a claim for loss of consortium. A doctor testified as an expert witness, explaining that trauma can cause changes to the chemistry, function, and structure of the brain. The district moved for summary judgment, asserting general governmental immunity from tort liability. Although bodily injury resulting from the negligent operation of a government vehicle (including a school bus) was a statutory exception to immunity, the court found that Charles had failed to show bodily injury. The trial court granted the district’s motion. Charles and Lisa appealed. The Michigan Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Markey J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Hoekstra, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.