Opinion ID: 848833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: decisions from other jurisdictions find operation of means of egress from a bus constitutes operation of the bus

Text: Other jurisdictions interpreting statutes similar to Michigan's have held that functions involving entry or departure from a bus are part of the operation of a motor vehicle. In Groves v. Dayton Pub. School, [13] the Ohio Court of Appeals held that a bus driver's negligence in helping a handicapped student get out of a bus involved the operation of a motor vehicle. [14] In Groves, the plaintiff suffered a hand injury when the bus driver failed to secure the plaintiff in her wheelchair before helping her get off the bus. The defendant claimed that the bus driver's actions could not constitute negligent operation of [a] motor vehicle for the purpose of the Ohio exception to governmental immunity. The Groves Court did not agree. It concluded: R.C. Chapter 2744 contains no definition of the term operation of any motor vehicle. We find the term capable of encompassing more than the mere act of driving the vehicle involved. Neither of the parties to this appeal refer us to any authority construing the term in question with regard to a driver assisting a disabled passenger, and our research in Ohio law has failed to reveal any cases on point.