Walter Winters v. City of Detroit

── Walter Winters v. City of Detroit ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General 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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WALTER WINTERS, UNPUBLISHED May 19, 2026 Plaintiff-Appellant, 1:56 PM v No. 371690 Wayne Circuit Court CITY OF DETROIT, LC No. 21-014748-CZ Defendant-Appellee. Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and GARRETT and MARIANI, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff, Walter Winters, suffered injuries when emergency medical technicians (EMTs) failed to keep the ambulance gurney onto which he was strapped in an upright position, causing him to fall to the ground as the EMTs unloaded the gurney from the ambulance. Winters filed this negligence action against defendant, the City of Detroit, which moved for summary disposition on the basis that it was immune from liability under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. Rather than analyzing Winters’s claim under the GTLA, the trial court applied the emergency medical services act (EMSA), MCL 333.20901 et seq., and determined that Winters failed to establish gross negligence or willful misconduct as required to avoid summary disposition under the EMSA. Winters appeals by right the trial court’s order granting the City’s motion for summary disposition. Because the trial court erroneously applied the EMSA and Winters’s complaint asserted a claim under the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1405, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Because no discovery has yet occurred, little is known of the incident giving rise to this case. Winters filed this action alleging that he was strapped to an ambulance gurney for transport and fell to the ground during the “unloading process” because EMTs negligently failed to keep the -1- gurney in an upright position.1 In lieu of filing an answer to the complaint, the City moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that Winters failed to state a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity. The City also maintained that unloading a patient from an ambulance was not a factual scenario that gave rise to a claim under the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1405, because unloading a patient did not involve the operation of a motor vehicle. Further, the City asserted that although Winters did not allege a claim under the EMSA, any such claim would fail because Winters did not suffer injury during medical treatment. Winters opposed the City’s motion, arguing that the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity applied. Winters relied on caselaw recognizing that the operation of a motor vehicle under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., includes loading and unloading a vehicle. The trial court granted the City’s motion, determining that the proper avenue for relief was under the EMSA but Winters failed to establish gross negligence or willful misconduct as required under the EMSA. Thereafter, the court denied Winters’s motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Kilian v TCF Nat’l Bank, 343 Mich App 621, 630; 997 NW2d 745 (2022). Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) is appropriate “if the plaintiff’s claims are barred because of immunity granted by law.” Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 466; 76