Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Dana Mark Gamarra v. Oakland County

Michigan Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 370203

• Disposition: Affirm in Part, Reverse in Part, Remanded

• Opinion

• Authorities (14)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (15.7K)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirm in Part, Reverse in Part, Remanded

Lead Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

DANA MARK GAMARRA, UNPUBLISHED
March 06, 2026
Plaintiff-Appellant, 12:03 PM

v No. 370203
Oakland Circuit Court
OAKLAND COUNTY, OAKLAND COUNTY LC No. 2022-195361-NI
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, and DEPUTY KEITH
LYBYRON DEAN,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

Defendant.

Before: YOUNG, P.J., and LETICA and KOROBKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this action arising from an automobile accident, plaintiff appeals by right the trial court’s
order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, Oakland County, Oakland County
Sheriff’s Department (OCSD), and Deputy Keith Lybyron Dean (Deputy Dean).1 Upon de novo
review, we agree with the trial court that Deputy Dean is entitled to summary disposition under
the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., but we disagree that
summary disposition is appropriate as to Oakland County and OCSD. We therefore affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1
We will collectively refer to these parties as defendants. After the trial court granted summary
disposition in favor of these defendants, plaintiff stipulated to dismiss, with prejudice, defendant
Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company. The insurance company is not a party to this appeal.

-1-
I. BACKGROUND AND FACTS

On April 30, 2021, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Deputy Dean responded to a police call
involving an injury. He believed that he would provide first aid until emergency medical services
arrived at the scene. But when he arrived at the location, a child’s grandmother reported that her
11-year-old granddaughter put her hand through a window and was bleeding so profusely that they
could not wait for an ambulance to arrive. At that point the child’s mother had her in a vehicle.
Deputy Dean told her that he would provide a police escort to McLaren Hospital and directed the
mother to follow behind his vehicle.

Deputy Dean was driving a fully-marked county vehicle and activated his lights and siren.
He drove southbound on Baldwin Avenue approaching the intersection with Walton Boulevard.
At that point, Baldwin Avenue had five lanes, including two southbound lanes, a center lane which
became the southbound left-turn lane, and two lanes for northbound traffic. Because there was a
red light for Baldwin Avenue traffic, all of the southbound lanes, including the center-turn lane,
were occupied, so Deputy Dean proceeded to drive the wrong way in the closest northbound lane
so he could bypass the stopped traffic and turn left onto Walton Boulevard. Deputy Dean testified
that he slowed down as he approached the intersection but did not come to a complete stop. He
further testified that his emergency lights and siren were stopping traffic at the intersection.
Indeed, after two vehicles finished traveling through the intersection on Walton Boulevard, a truck
traveling eastbound on Walton Boulevard, which still had the green light, stopped. Deputy Dean
then accelerated into the intersection to make the left turn. But an eastbound Chevrolet Malibu
driven by plaintiff did not stop, and the front of Deputy Dean’s vehicle crashed into the driver-side
door of the Malibu in the intersection, resulting in the Malibu’s airbags deploying. The overall
incident was captured on his vehicle’s dash camera, including plaintiff’s later apology to Deputy
Dean, explaining that he “never heard a siren.” Deputy Dean, for his part, testified that he never
saw plaintiff’s vehicle before the collision.

On August 1, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants. Specifically, he asserted
that Deputy Dean wrongfully entered the intersection without slowing, stopping, or yielding to
plaintiff’s vehicle, causing him to strike it “at a high rate of speed with extreme force” leading
plaintiff to “suffer serious impairment injuries.” In a claim against Oakland County and OCSD,
plaintiff sought damages for bodily injury and property damage resulting from the alleged
negligent operation of a government-owned motor vehicle, MCL 691.1405, in violation of the
Motor Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq. In a claim against Deputy Dean asserting gross
negligence, MCL 691.1407(2), plaintiff alleged that Deputy Dean operated his vehicle “so
recklessly as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern” as to whether injury would result by
failing to operate the overhead lights and siren.

By the time he was deposed, plaintiff had seen the dash camera video from Deputy Dean’s
vehicle. Contrary to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff acknowledged that Deputy Dean’s
siren and lights were activated at the time of the accident. Plaintiff testified that he did not hear
the siren, and he denied playing the radio loudly such that he would have failed to hear the siren.
Plaintiff also acknowledged that a truck pulling a trailer being driven in the lane to plaintiff’s right
had stopped abruptly. Plaintiff did not investigate why the truck stopped, but drove through the
intersection because he had a green traffic signal and the intersection was “clear.”

-2-
Defendants moved for summary disposition, claiming entitlement to governmental
immunity on grounds that plaintiff could not establish negligence or gross negligence as required
under the GTLA. Plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that there were genuine issues of
material fact. The trial court granted defendants’ motion, and this appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. White
v Henry Ford Macomb Hosp Corp, 346 Mich App 405, 419; 12 NW3d 635 (2023). A claim is
properly dismissed under MCR 2.117(C)(7) if it is barred by immunity granted by law. “When
reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7), this Court must accept all well-pleaded factual
allegations as true and construe them in favor of the plaintiff unless other evidence contradicts
them.” Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich App 406, 428; 789 NW2d 211 (2010). We must also
“consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence
submitted in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Fields v Suburban Mobility Auth for
Regional Transp, 311 Mich App 231, 234; 874 NW2d 715 (2015). “If there are no material facts
in dispute or if reasonable minds could not differ regarding the legal effect of those facts, the issue
of governmental immunity is resolved as an issue of law.” Norris v Lincoln Park Police Officers,
292 Mich App 574, 578; 808 NW2d 578 (2011). “But when a relevant factual dispute does exist,
summary disposition is not appropriate.” Fields, 311 Mich App at 234 (quotation marks and
citation omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary
disposition because defendants’ liability turns on disputed issues of fact. We agree in part.

Governmental agencies and their employees are generally immune from tort liability under
the GTLA. See Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 202; 731 NW2d 41 (2007);
MCL 691.1407. But there are exceptions to this immunity; two kinds are at issue in this case. The
first is the so-called motor-vehicle exception for governmental agencies, see MCL 691.1405, and
the second is the gross-negligence exception for government employees, see MCL 691.1407(2).
We address each exception in turn.

A. MOTOR-VEHICLE EXCEPTION

The motor-vehicle exception provides:

Governmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage
resulting from the negligent operation by any officer, agent, or employee of the
governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the governmental agency is
owner . . . . [MCL 691.1405.]

In order to hold Oakland County and OCSD liable for Deputy Dean’s alleged negligence,
plaintiff had to plead, and be able to prove, that his injuries resulted from Deputy Dean’s negligent
operation of the police vehicle. See id.; Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth, 297 Mich App 427,
436; 824 NW2d 318 (2018). To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must

-3-
establish: (1) that defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of defendant’s duty; (3)
damages suffered by the plaintiff; and (4) the damages were proximately caused by the defendant’s
breach of duty. Hill v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 492 Mich 651, 660; 822 NW2d 190 (2012); Composto
v Albrecht, 328 Mich App 496, 499; 938 NW2d 755 (2019).

The first and third elements do not appear to be in dispute on appeal—plaintiff suffered
damages; and Deputy Dean, as a driver of a motor vehicle, owed plaintiff and others using the
roadways a duty “to exercise ordinary and reasonable care and caution” in his operation of the
vehicle under the circumstances. Zarzecki v Hatch, 347 Mich 138, 141; 79 NW2d 605 (1956).
Indeed, “[i]t is well established” that although MCL 257.603 excuses the drivers of authorized
emergency vehicles from obeying certain traffic rules, such drivers must still drive “in a manner
that does not endanger life or property,” and “in a reasonable manner that is mindful of the safety
of others on the road.” Flanagin v Kalkaska Co Rd Comm, 319 Mich App 633, 638; 904 NW2d
427 (2017). MCL 257.603(3)(b) provides that the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may
“[p]roceed past a . . . stop signal . . . , but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe
operation,” and MCL 257.653(2) provides that such a driver is not relieved of “the duty to drive
with due regard for the safety of persons using the highway.” “While police cars, ambulances, and
fire trucks operating with lights and sirens may proceed through a red light, they may do so only
after slowing and ensuring that any cross-traffic has observed them and stopped.” Flanagin, 319
Mich App at 638.

Defendants dispute the second (breach) and fourth (causation) elements of plaintiff’s claim.
But we conclude that both involve questions of fact that must be decided by a jury.

First, breach. As a general matter, “the question of breach—whether [a defendant’s]
conduct in the particular case is below the general standard of care—is a question of fact for the
jury.” Kandil-Elsayed v F & O Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95, 112; 1 NW3d 44 (2023) (quotation marks
and citations omitted). Only when “the evidence presented to a court concerning breach generates
no questions of fact”—that is, when no reasonable jury could find that a defendant failed to act
with reasonable care under the circumstances—may a court grant summary disposition on the
question of breach. Id. n 2. “A question of fact exists when reasonable minds could differ as to
the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.” Dextrom, 287 Mich App at 416.

We are not persuaded by defendants’ argument that the evidence of Deputy Dean’s due
care generates no question of fact for the jury. The evidence does show that Deputy Dean activated
his emergency lights and siren and that he slowed down as he approached the intersection, but a
question of fact remains whether he acted with reasonable care and caution to “ensur[e] that any
cross-traffic has observed [him] and stopped.” Flanagin, 319 Mich App at 638. After initially
slowing down, Deputy Dean accelerated into the intersection and the front of his car struck the
driver-side door of plaintiff’s vehicle. At his deposition, Deputy Dean testified that he never saw
plaintiff’s car before the collision. A reasonable jury could infer from this evidence that Deputy
Dean did not look to his right to ensure that all eastbound traffic had stopped, and in failing to do
so breached his duty of care.

Next is proximate cause. As with breach, proximate cause is ordinarily a question of fact
for the jury, “but if reasonable minds could not differ regarding proximate cause of the plaintiff’s
injury, the court should rule as a matter of law.” Babula v Robertson, 212 Mich App 45, 54; 536

-4-
NW2d 834 (1995). Defendants argue that “the sole and proximate cause of the subject accident
was [plaintiff’s] reckless conduct in failing to yield for Deputy Dean as [was] [plaintiff’s] legal
duty pursuant to MCL 257.653(1)(a).” Under that statute, a driver must yield the right-of-way to
an authorized emergency vehicle that has activated its emergency lights and siren. MCL
257.653(1)(a). Defendants argue that it was plaintiff’s failure to do so, and not Deputy Dean’s
conduct, that proximately caused the accident.

The flaw in defendants’ argument is that there can be more than one proximate cause of an
injury under MCL 691.1405,2 and within Michigan’s comparative-negligence system “a plaintiff
whose negligence contributed to their injury may still recover against a negligent defendant.”
Marion v Grand Truck Western R Co, 513 Mich 220, 234; 15 NW3d 180 (2024). As summarized
by this Court in Lamp v Reynolds, 249 Mich App 591, 605; 645 NW2d 311 (2002):

[T]he comparative fault statutes apply to all persons, including the plaintiff, who
are found to be at fault, i.e., whose conduct is a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s
damages. A plaintiff will be considered at fault if a defendant proves that the
plaintiff’s conduct was both a cause in fact and a legal, or proximate, cause of his
own damages. Once the at-fault persons are determined, the trier of fact assigns
percentages of fault to each person after considering the nature of each person’s
conduct and the extent of the causal relation between the conduct and the resulting
damages.

For tort claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, summary disposition is inappropriate unless
no reasonable jury could fail to find that the plaintiff is more than 50 percent at fault. See Poch v
Anderson, 229 Mich App 40, 51; 580 NW2d 456 (1998); MCL 500.3135(2)(b).

In the present case, there is evidence from which a jury could find that plaintiff was
negligent by failing to yield as required by MCL 257.653(1)(a). See Rodriguez v Solar of Mich,
Inc, 191 Mich App 483, 487-488; 478 NW2d 914 (1991) (“Violation of a statute by a plaintiff or
a defendant creates a prima facie case from which a jury may draw an inference of negligence.”).
In particular, plaintiff acknowledged that he saw a truck driving in an adjacent lane to his right
come to an abrupt stop, but he nonetheless continued through the intersection without slowing
down to determine why the truck had stopped. Yet plaintiff also testified that he did not hear a
siren, nor was he playing the radio loudly such that he would have been responsible for not hearing
the siren. Additionally, as Deputy Dean was driving to the left of three lanes on Baldwin Avenue
that were blocked by traffic, a reasonable jury could find that the stopped traffic on Baldwin

2
We note that under MCL 691.1407(2), the GTLA’s gross-negligence exception applies only if
the defendant’s gross negligence is “the” proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages. In Robinson
v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 458-459; 613 NW2d 307 (2000), our Supreme Court construed the
Legislature’s use of the phrase “the proximate cause,” as distinct from “a proximate cause,” to
mean “the one most immediate, efficient, and direct cause preceding an injury.” In contrast, MCL
691.1405—the GTLA’s motor-vehicle exception and the statutory provision at issue here—does
not use that terminology. So there is no need to identify only one proximate cause of plaintiff’s
injury for purposes of determining whether Oakland County and OCSD could be held liable for
Deputy Dean’s negligent use of their motor vehicle.

-5-
Avenue blocked plaintiff’s line of sight to Deputy Dean’s vehicle. From all this evidence a
reasonable jury could also conclude that plaintiff was not negligent, or alternatively that he was
negligent but not more than 50 percent at fault. Accordingly, whether and how much plaintiff was
at fault for the accident is a question of fact, so the trial court erred in granting summary disposition
to Oakland County and OCSD.

B. GROSS-NEGLIGENCE EXCEPTION

MCL 691.1407(2) provides that “each officer . . . of a governmental agency . . . is immune
from tort liability for an injury to a person or damage to property caused by the officer . . . while
acting on behalf of a government agency if . . . (a) [t]he officer . . . is acting or reasonably believes
he . . . is acting within the scope of his . . . authority; [t]he governmental agency is engaged
in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function; and [t]he officer’s . . . conduct does
not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage.” There is no
dispute that Deputy Dean was acting within the scope of his authority and engaged in the exercise
or discharge of a governmental function. So in order to hold Deputy Dean liable, plaintiff had to
plead and be able to prove that Deputy Dean’s conduct amounted to gross negligence that was the
proximate cause of the injuries at issue. MCL 691.1407(2)(c).

Evidence of ordinary negligence is not enough to establish a material question of fact
concerning gross negligence. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 122; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).
Rather, “gross negligence” is “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern
for whether an injury results.” MCL 691.1407(8)(a). The gross-negligence standard “suggests . .
. almost a willful disregard of precautions or measures to attend to safety and a singular disregard
for substantial risks,” Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80, 90; 687 NW2d 333 (2004), “as though
. . . the actor simply did not care about the safety or welfare of those in his charge,” id.

Even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that
Deputy Dean’s conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence. Plaintiff initially alleged in
his complaint that Deputy Dean entered the intersection without activating his emergency lights
and siren, but the record clearly reflects—and plaintiff admitted at his deposition—that Deputy
Dean did have his emergency lights and siren activated. The evidence also shows that Deputy
Dean slowed down as he approached the intersection, and he proceeded into the intersection after
a number of other vehicles had passed or stopped. Thus, it cannot be said that Deputy Dean acted
with “a willful disregard of precautions or measures to attend to safety and a singular disregard for
substantial risks,” id., and we do not believe any reasonable jury could find that his conduct was
“so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results,” MCL
691.1407(8)(a) (emphasis added). Although, as stated above, the evidence establishes a question
of fact as to ordinary negligence, that is not enough to establish a question of fact as to gross
negligence. Maiden, 461 Mich at 122. As a result, Deputy Dean is entitled to governmental
immunity under the GTLA, see MCL 691.1407(2), so the trial court did not err in granting
summary disposition in his favor.

-6-
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.3

/s/ Adrienne N. Young
/s/ Anica Letica
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin

3
In the trial court, defendants also sought summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the
additional ground that plaintiff did not demonstrate a threshold injury, serious impairment of an
important body function, as required by MCL 500.3135. The trial court determined that there was
a question of fact pertaining to that issue. Defendants state in their brief on appeal that they
disagree with that determination, but they do not include the issue in their counterstatement of
questions presented as an alternative ground for affirmance, and at oral argument defendants’
counsel conceded that they were not seeking to have this Court review the trial court’s
determination as to that issue. Therefore, we consider this issue abandoned and decline to address
it.

-7-