Per Curiam.
On the way to a house fire, a volunteer firefighter driving his own vehicle collided with a car driven by the plaintiffs decedent. The ensuing litigation presents an issue regarding which of two statutes should be used to gauge the defendants’ potential liability. The circuit court entered judgment for the defendants, but the Court of Appeals reversed. We reinstate the judgment of the circuit court.
i
Richard C. Wildfong, Jr., was a volunteer firefighter for the Fruitport Township Fire Department in Muskegon County.1 He traveled to fires and other emergencies in his own pickup truck, on which he had installed red and white oscillating roof lights and a siren.
Late on a January evening in 1993, Mr. Wildfong was awakened from sleep by his pager, which notified him of a reported chimney fire. He dressed and left his home, driving his pickup.2
As he began traveling toward the fire, Mr. Wildfong was not using the pickup’s red lights or siren. He testified that he was not sure whether to go directly to [13]*13the fire, or go to the fire station and drive a pumper truck to the scene.
As Mr. Wildfong was making up his mind, he received a second page, indicating that the apparent chimney fire was, instead, an electrical fire in the upstairs of a structure. Hearing that report, Mr. Wildfong activated his overhead lights by plugging a cord into the receptacle for the cigarette lighter. He says he knows the overhead lights were on because he could see the red reflection against a white house that he passed as he turned them on.
The plaintiff believes that the overhead lights either were never activated or were turned on only an instant before the collision described below.
As Mr. Wildfong was driving east on Heights Ravenna Road, he approached an establishment called “Punches.” A white car safely pulled out in front of him. It was followed by a second car, with which Mr. Wildfong’s truck collided. The driver and one passenger were killed. Three other passengers were injured.
The plaintiff is the personal representative of the estate of the deceased driver, Jamie A. Youngo. In November 1993, she sued Mr. Wildfong, Fruitport Township, and the Fruitport Township Fire Department. Four other suits were filed by the passengers or their representatives.
The Muskegon Circuit Court consolidated the five cases for a trial on liability, reserving the question of damages.
Seeking a preliminary ruling, Fruitport Township and its fire department argued in circuit court that they were immune under MCL 691.1407(1); MSA [14]*143.996(107)(1),3 and that vicarious liability for Mr. Wildfong’s actions could exist only if he had been grossly negligent, MCL 691.1407(2)(c); MSA 3.996(107)(2)(c).4 Fruitport acknowledged that a governmental agency can be found liable for ordinary negligence in the operation of a government-owned motor vehicle, MCL 691.1405; MSA 3.996(105), but noted that Mr. Wildfong was driving his own vehicle. The circuit court agreed that “[g]ross negligence would bind the Township,” saying that “[t]he other claims would be dismissed.”
[15]*15The October 1994 jury trial on liability concluded three days later, when the jury returned a verdict in which it found that both Mr. Wildfong and Mr. Youngo were negligent. However, the jury found that Mr. Wildfong was not grossly negligent.
A few days after the jury returned its verdict, the defendants (Mr. Wildfong, the township, and the fire department) filed a motion for summary disposition, seeking to employ the jury’s finding of no gross negligence to establish that all the defendants were immune, and that a final judgment in their favor could therefore be entered.
Approximately three weeks after that, the plaintiff filed motions for summary disposition, for new trial, and to reopen the proofs. The latter motions were based on the affidavit of a woman who had come forward after trial, disclosing for the first time that she had witnessed the accident. After two hearings and a deposition, the circuit court granted a new trial, again limited to issues of liability.
The defendants later renewed their motion for summary disposition, but it was denied by the circuit court.
The case was retried in February 1996. This time, a different verdict form was used, so that gross negligence was the first question for the jurors to answer. Again, they found no gross negligence on the part of Mr. Wildfong. In accordance with the court’s directions, the jury then stopped without answering the remaining questions regarding ordinary negligence, proximate cause, or allocation of fault. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.
[16]*16The plaintiff appealed, and persuaded the Court of Appeals to reverse.5 A majority of the panel found the case to be controlled by Haberl v Rose, 225 Mich App 254; 570 NW2d 664 (1997), which is discussed below. Judge Mackenzie dissented.
Mr. Wildfong has applied to this Court for leave to appeal. A separate application has also been filed by Fruitport Township and its fire department.
n
In Haberl v Rose, a school employee was driving her own car in connection with her work. She negligently collided with another vehicle, causing serious injury.
At the time of the accident, Ms. Rose was acting within the scope of her employment, her employer was engaged in a governmental function, and she was not grossly negligent. She thus appeared to be immune under MCL 691.1407(2); MSA 3.996(107)(2).6
However, the plaintiffs in Haberl asserted that her ordinary negligence allowed the imposition of liability under the owner’s civil liability section of the Motor Vehicle Code. MCL 257.401(1); MSA 9.2101(1). That provision states that the owner of a vehicle is liable for injury caused by ordinary negligence in the operation of the vehicle.7
[17]*17Thus the issue in Haberl, as in the present case, was whether the potential liability of the governmental employee should be evaluated in light of the immunity language of MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107) or of the owner’s civil liability statute, MCL 257.401(1); MSA 9.2101(1).8
As one can gather from the material outlined above, the issue arises because of what might appear to be an anomaly: A person injured by a private citizen driving a privately owned vehicle generally can seek damages from the driver under an ordinary negligence standard,9 and can cite the same standard when seeking damages from the owner under the owner’s civil liability statute. And, while a person injured by a government employee driving a government-owned vehicle must show gross negligence to obtain damages from the driver,10 the person can seek damages from the owner of the vehicle under the ordinary negligence standard.11 However, a. person injured by a government employee driving his own [18]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Per Curiam.
On the way to a house fire, a volunteer firefighter driving his own vehicle collided with a car driven by the plaintiffs decedent. The ensuing litigation presents an issue regarding which of two statutes should be used to gauge the defendants’ potential liability. The circuit court entered judgment for the defendants, but the Court of Appeals reversed. We reinstate the judgment of the circuit court.
i
Richard C. Wildfong, Jr., was a volunteer firefighter for the Fruitport Township Fire Department in Muskegon County.1 He traveled to fires and other emergencies in his own pickup truck, on which he had installed red and white oscillating roof lights and a siren.
Late on a January evening in 1993, Mr. Wildfong was awakened from sleep by his pager, which notified him of a reported chimney fire. He dressed and left his home, driving his pickup.2
As he began traveling toward the fire, Mr. Wildfong was not using the pickup’s red lights or siren. He testified that he was not sure whether to go directly to [13]*13the fire, or go to the fire station and drive a pumper truck to the scene.
As Mr. Wildfong was making up his mind, he received a second page, indicating that the apparent chimney fire was, instead, an electrical fire in the upstairs of a structure. Hearing that report, Mr. Wildfong activated his overhead lights by plugging a cord into the receptacle for the cigarette lighter. He says he knows the overhead lights were on because he could see the red reflection against a white house that he passed as he turned them on.
The plaintiff believes that the overhead lights either were never activated or were turned on only an instant before the collision described below.
As Mr. Wildfong was driving east on Heights Ravenna Road, he approached an establishment called “Punches.” A white car safely pulled out in front of him. It was followed by a second car, with which Mr. Wildfong’s truck collided. The driver and one passenger were killed. Three other passengers were injured.
The plaintiff is the personal representative of the estate of the deceased driver, Jamie A. Youngo. In November 1993, she sued Mr. Wildfong, Fruitport Township, and the Fruitport Township Fire Department. Four other suits were filed by the passengers or their representatives.
The Muskegon Circuit Court consolidated the five cases for a trial on liability, reserving the question of damages.
Seeking a preliminary ruling, Fruitport Township and its fire department argued in circuit court that they were immune under MCL 691.1407(1); MSA [14]*143.996(107)(1),3 and that vicarious liability for Mr. Wildfong’s actions could exist only if he had been grossly negligent, MCL 691.1407(2)(c); MSA 3.996(107)(2)(c).4 Fruitport acknowledged that a governmental agency can be found liable for ordinary negligence in the operation of a government-owned motor vehicle, MCL 691.1405; MSA 3.996(105), but noted that Mr. Wildfong was driving his own vehicle. The circuit court agreed that “[g]ross negligence would bind the Township,” saying that “[t]he other claims would be dismissed.”
[15]*15The October 1994 jury trial on liability concluded three days later, when the jury returned a verdict in which it found that both Mr. Wildfong and Mr. Youngo were negligent. However, the jury found that Mr. Wildfong was not grossly negligent.
A few days after the jury returned its verdict, the defendants (Mr. Wildfong, the township, and the fire department) filed a motion for summary disposition, seeking to employ the jury’s finding of no gross negligence to establish that all the defendants were immune, and that a final judgment in their favor could therefore be entered.
Approximately three weeks after that, the plaintiff filed motions for summary disposition, for new trial, and to reopen the proofs. The latter motions were based on the affidavit of a woman who had come forward after trial, disclosing for the first time that she had witnessed the accident. After two hearings and a deposition, the circuit court granted a new trial, again limited to issues of liability.
The defendants later renewed their motion for summary disposition, but it was denied by the circuit court.
The case was retried in February 1996. This time, a different verdict form was used, so that gross negligence was the first question for the jurors to answer. Again, they found no gross negligence on the part of Mr. Wildfong. In accordance with the court’s directions, the jury then stopped without answering the remaining questions regarding ordinary negligence, proximate cause, or allocation of fault. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.
[16]*16The plaintiff appealed, and persuaded the Court of Appeals to reverse.5 A majority of the panel found the case to be controlled by Haberl v Rose, 225 Mich App 254; 570 NW2d 664 (1997), which is discussed below. Judge Mackenzie dissented.
Mr. Wildfong has applied to this Court for leave to appeal. A separate application has also been filed by Fruitport Township and its fire department.
n
In Haberl v Rose, a school employee was driving her own car in connection with her work. She negligently collided with another vehicle, causing serious injury.
At the time of the accident, Ms. Rose was acting within the scope of her employment, her employer was engaged in a governmental function, and she was not grossly negligent. She thus appeared to be immune under MCL 691.1407(2); MSA 3.996(107)(2).6
However, the plaintiffs in Haberl asserted that her ordinary negligence allowed the imposition of liability under the owner’s civil liability section of the Motor Vehicle Code. MCL 257.401(1); MSA 9.2101(1). That provision states that the owner of a vehicle is liable for injury caused by ordinary negligence in the operation of the vehicle.7
[17]*17Thus the issue in Haberl, as in the present case, was whether the potential liability of the governmental employee should be evaluated in light of the immunity language of MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107) or of the owner’s civil liability statute, MCL 257.401(1); MSA 9.2101(1).8
As one can gather from the material outlined above, the issue arises because of what might appear to be an anomaly: A person injured by a private citizen driving a privately owned vehicle generally can seek damages from the driver under an ordinary negligence standard,9 and can cite the same standard when seeking damages from the owner under the owner’s civil liability statute. And, while a person injured by a government employee driving a government-owned vehicle must show gross negligence to obtain damages from the driver,10 the person can seek damages from the owner of the vehicle under the ordinary negligence standard.11 However, a. person injured by a government employee driving his own [18]*18privately owned vehicle cannot employ the ordinary negligence standard against the driver or the owner, since the driver/owner is the same person and (as a government employee) is subject to the gross negligence standard. Faced with this situation, the plaintiffs in Haberl and the present case argue that the driver/owner ought to be able to invoke the higher protection of the gross negligence standard only as driver (the role in which he is a government employee), not as owner of the private vehicle.12
Accepting that argument, the Haberl majority first noted that the broad sweep of governmental immunity is limited by MCL 691.1405; MSA 3.996(105), which applies an ordinary negligence standard in situations in which harm is caused by the negligent operation of a government-owned motor vehicle. The majority in Haberl said that “[t]his major exception to governmental immunity is consistent with the policy evident in the civil liability act, which imposes liability on the owners of privately owned vehicles.” 225 Mich App 259.
The majority then turned to the rules of statutory construction, saying that the owner’s civil liability statute was the more specific measure. 225 Mich App 262. The majority observed that application of its provisions would avoid the anomalous possibility that ordinary negligence would be the standard for liability in accidents involving all governmental and nongovernmental vehicles, except private vehicles driven on government business. 225 Mich App 263-264.
[19]*19On those bases, the majority in Haberl vacated the circuit court’s judgment in favor of the defendant and remanded the case for entry of a judgment on the jury’s verdict of $260,000 in favor of the plaintiffs.
Dissenting in Haberl, Judge Saad said that, “[t]hough the majority’s reasoning has surface appeal, it cannot withstand closer scrutiny.” 225 Mich App 268. He observed that the owner’s civil liability statute has been part of Michigan law in some form since 1909, and he likewise outlined the nature and history of the statutory provisions regarding governmental immunity.
Explaining the context in which recent immunity reforms were enacted, Judge Saad concluded that the Legislature knew exactly what it was doing, as it provided immunity for negligent acts of government employees driving their own vehicles in the course of employment. He said that “the Legislature made a policy choice with which we may disagree, but which we are not free to undo.”13 225 Mich App 273.
m
As indicated, the present case was decided on the basis of Haberl. The Court of Appeals majority wrote:
There is nothing in the facts of this case which would distinguish it from Haberl, and, accordingly, on the strength of its authority we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.
[20]*20The majority did not explain how Fruitport Township or its fire department could be vicariously liable under the owner’s civil liability statute.14
Dissenting in the present case, Judge Mackenzie said that MCL 691.1407(2); MSA 3.996(107)(2) governs individual immunity for lower-level government employees (including volunteers), and that this immunity is limited only by the phrase, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section” (emphasis supplied). Because the civil liability statute is outside the immunity section, she found the immunity provision to be controlling in this context. Implicit in Judge Mackenzie’s analysis is a determination that the immunity statute is the more specific measure.
As for the township and the fire department, Judge Mackenzie said that the owner’s civil liability statute does not give rise to vicarious liability. Pointing out that the exception for government-owned vehicles15 does not apply in this case, she said that the potential liability of the municipal defendants was controlled by MCL 691.1407(1); MSA 3.996(107)(1).
Judge Mackenzie concluded by pointing out the likely effect of a judicial decision to apply Haberl in this context:
A large percentage of firefighters in this state are either volunteers or on part-time status. In order to get to the scene of a fire, these individuals must be on call and must use their own vehicles, equipped for emergency runs. By holding these firefighters to an ordinary negligence standard rather than the gross negligence standard when responding to an emergency call, and by making them individually liable, this Court is raising a significant disincentive [21]*21to serve as a volunteer firefighter to the detriment of rural areas and small communities throughout the state.
IV
It is question of law whether a statute applies, and we examine questions of law de novo. People v Coutu, 459 Mich 348, 353; 589 NW2d 458 (1999); Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152, 158; 587 NW2d 264 (1998); Morley v Automobile Club of Michigan, 458 Mich 459, 465; 581 NW2d 237 (1998).
We agree with the dissenting opinion of Judge Saad in Haberl16 and with the above-noted portions of the dissenting opinion written by Judge MACKENZIE in the present case.
The immunity statute is certainly the more specific measure in this instance. It deals directly with the potential liability of government employees and volunteers who are (or reasonably believe themselves to be) acting within the scope of their authority, on behalf of a governmental agency that is engaged in a governmental function. By contrast the owner’s civil liability statute is a broad measure widely applicable to owners of vehicles.
As Judge Saad explained, the Legislature has formulated a clear statutory framework for determining the extent of governmental immunity in a case arising from a motor vehicle accident. These provisions outline the immunity of government agencies17 and of individuals,18 as well as the extent of liability for harm [22]*22caused by negligent operation of government-owned vehicles19 or failure to maintain the roadway.20 It is not for the courts to add or subtract from the balance struck by citizens of this state, as expressed by their elected representatives in the Legislature.21
In this case, the circuit court correctly determined that Mr. Wildfong was immune unless his conduct was grossly negligent. The jury having found no gross negligence on his part, we reinstate the judgment of the circuit court in his favor. There likewise being no statutory basis for imposing liability on the township or its fire department, we also reinstate the judgment of the circuit court in favor of the municipal defendants. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed.22 MCR 7.302(F)(1).
Weaver, C.J., and Brickley, Cavanagh, Taylor, Corrigan, and Young, JJ., concurred.