M Civ JI 85.02 Requirement of Due Care by Operator of an Emergency Vehicle

This statute excuses the claimed [ nature of violation ] by [ plaintiff / defendant ] if [ plaintiff / defendant ] complied with the provisions of the statute which I have just read to you.

However, the [ plaintiff / defendant ] must always use that care which a reasonably careful [ description of operator ] would use under the circumstances which you find existed in this case.

Note on Use

This instruction must be given whenever M Civ JI 85.01 is given. If there is a question of fact as to whether the vehicle is “authorized,” or whether it is “responding to an emergency call,” etc., such issue must be covered by an additional instruction to be drafted for the particular case.

Comment

Such an instruction has been approved in conjunction with the reading of the statute by the Court to the jury in McKay v Hargis, 351 Mich 409; 88 NW2d 456 (1958). Other Michigan Supreme Court opinions have used similar language. See Holser v City of Midland, 330 Mich 581; 48 NW2d 208 (1951); Kalamazoo v Priest, 331 Mich 43; 49 NW2d 52 (1951).

History

M Civ JI 85.02 was SJI 71.02.