Motion To Strike Def's Notice Of Non-Parties At Fault

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF NON-PARTIES AT FAULT OR,

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO AMEND COMPLAINT

STATE OF _____________________

IN THE _______________ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF _____________

____________________________________

____________________________________

Plaintiffs

v.

JOHN DOE and

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and/or

HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

___________________________________________________/

___________________________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S NOTICES OF NON-PARTIES AT

FAULT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, and for his Motion to Strike Defendant's Notices of Non-Parties at Fault, hereby states as follows:

On or about [date], Plaintiff sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle collision.

Plaintiff was the restrained driver of a vehicle leading a funeral procession west on [road].

Concurrently, Individual #1 and Individual #2 were traveling in the oncoming lane (i.e., east on [road]). Both yielded for the procession.

As the two came to a stop, Defendant negligently rear-ended Individual #1 (who was traveling behind Individual #2).

The collision was so violent that it caused Defendant’s vehicle to land in front of Plaintiff's vehicle (on the other side of the road), causing the collision underlying Plaintiff's claim.

As a result of this collision, Defendant was the only individual issued a hazardous action for failure to stop within an assured clear distance.

Defendant has now filed two notices of non-parties at fault, claiming that both Individual #2 and Individual #1 were potentially at fault for yielding to the funeral precession and allegedly not obeying a green traffic signal.

Pursuant to MCL 257.402, a plaintiff who shows by competent evidence that the defendant was traveling in a certain direction and overtook and struck the rear end of another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall be deemed prima facie evidence of negligence. Under this section, a rebuttable presumption arises that offending driver is prima facie guilty of negligence. Vander Laan v. Miedema, 385 Mich. 226, 188 N.W.2d 564 (1971).

The statutory presumption that a motorist who collides with the rear of another vehicle traveling in the same direction is negligent is not rebutted by a mere showing of a sudden stop. Hill v. Wilson, 209 Mich. App. 356; 531...