Lodge Freeway Good Samaritan Death in Southfield: What Michigan Law Says About Rescuers

By Koussan Law
Published October 4, 2026, 12:48 p.m. ET

Short answer: A motorist who stopped to help after a two-vehicle crash on the southbound Lodge Freeway (M-10) near 9 Mile Road in Southfield was struck and killed by another vehicle late on Saturday, Oct. 3, according to Michigan State Police as reported by FOX 2 Detroit. Under Michigan's no-fault law, when a person on foot is killed, death benefits are claimed through an auto policy in his own household first, or through the state's assigned claims plan, not from the insurer of the vehicle that hit him. Because a death meets the no-fault tort threshold, his estate can also bring a wrongful death claim against any driver whose negligence contributed, and Michigan's rescue doctrine does not count a reasonable decision to help as fault. What led to the first crash and which insurance policies apply have not been made public.

What happened

Michigan State Police troopers responded shortly after 11:30 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 3, to a crash on southbound M-10 near 9 Mile Road in Southfield, according to FOX 2 Detroit, citing state police. Police said the first crash, between two vehicles, left one vehicle disabled and blocking the two left lanes. A passing motorist stopped on the right shoulder, got out and crossed the freeway to help the people involved. While he was helping, another vehicle approaching the disabled vehicle swerved to avoid it and struck him. Despite lifesaving efforts, he was pronounced dead at the scene. The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press also reported the death, citing state police. He stopped to help others, and his family has lost him.

What we know so far

• The first crash involved two vehicles and left one disabled and blocking the two left lanes of southbound M-10 near 9 Mile Road; troopers responded shortly after 11:30 p.m. (FOX 2 Detroit, citing Michigan State Police).
• The man who died was a passing motorist who stopped on the right shoulder and crossed the freeway on foot to help (FOX 2 Detroit; The Detroit News; Detroit Free Press; The Macomb Daily, citing troopers).
• Another vehicle approaching the disabled vehicle swerved in an attempt to avoid it and struck him. Troopers, Southfield police and Southfield Fire/EMS began lifesaving efforts, including CPR, and he was pronounced dead at the scene (FOX 2 Detroit).
• The driver who struck him stayed at the scene and cooperated, and police said there was no indication that alcohol or drugs were a factor (FOX 2 Detroit).
• The freeway reopened at about 4:30 a.m., and police said the crash remains under investigation (FOX 2 Detroit).

What has not been established

• His name, age and hometown have not been released in the reports reviewed for this page.
• What led to the first crash, and whether anyone in it was hurt.
• How the second collision unfolded beyond the sequence police described, including what the approaching driver could see and when.
• Who owned each vehicle, whether any driver was working at the time, and which insurance policies apply.
• Whether any citation or charge will follow.

Who pays no-fault benefits when a Good Samaritan on foot is killed?

A policy in his own household comes first

Michigan does not send a pedestrian's no-fault claim to the insurer of the vehicle that hit him. Under MCL 500.3115 (section explorer), a person hurt "while not an occupant of a motor vehicle" claims personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under a policy that covers him through MCL 500.3114(1) (section explorer): a policy naming him, his spouse, or a relative of either who lives in the same household. If none applies, the claim goes through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan. Police said he had left his vehicle and crossed the freeway on foot, so the rules for people who are not occupants of a vehicle appear to apply.

What PIP pays after a death

Survivor's loss under MCL 500.3108 (section explorer) pays dependents the support they would have received from the person who died, plus up to $20 per day for replacement services he would have performed for them. It is subject to a monthly maximum adjusted each year for the cost of living, shared by all survivors, and is not payable beyond the first three years after the accident. PIP also covers funeral and burial expenses in the amount the policy sets, which under MCL 500.3107 (section explorer) must be at least $1,750 and no more than $5,000.

The one-year notice rule

The clock runs from the accident, not from the end of the police investigation. Written notice should be given to the household insurer within one year under MCL 500.3145 (section explorer), and a later lawsuit can recover only losses incurred in the year before it is filed. An Assigned Claims Plan claim must be reported to the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility within one year after the accident under MCL 500.3174 (section explorer). The firm's no-fault PIP claims page explains how these benefits work.

Can his family bring a wrongful death claim, and against whom?

A death meets the tort threshold

MCL 500.3135(1) (section explorer) allows a lawsuit for noneconomic loss when "the injured person has suffered death." The personal representative of his estate would bring it under the wrongful death act, MCL 600.2922. Damages can include medical, funeral and burial expenses the estate is liable for, conscious pain and suffering before death, loss of financial support, and loss of the society and companionship of the person who died. In 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court reaffirmed in Daher v Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC that the lost earning capacity of the person who died is not recoverable under the act. Economic losses beyond PIP limits, such as survivor's loss past the monthly or three-year limits, can also be claimed in tort under MCL 500.3135(3)(c).

The rescue doctrine reaches whoever created the danger

In Michigan, "rescuers, as a class, are foreseeable," as the lead opinion put it in Solomon v Shuell, 435 Mich 104 (1990). In Sweetman v State Highway Department, 137 Mich App 14 (1984), the Court of Appeals explained that when a defendant "has created a situation of peril for another the defendant is held to have caused the peril not only to the victim but also to his rescuer."

Applied here, if negligence by a driver led to the first crash, that driver could share legal responsibility for the death of a man who stopped to help, even though, as police described it, a different vehicle struck him. Whether the first crash involved negligence, and by whom, has not been reported.

Sweetman is close to these facts: after a driver slid into the guardrail on an icy Grand Rapids freeway overpass, a motorist who stopped walked up the road to warn oncoming traffic and was struck by a car that lost control. The court said that a person "remains in the course of a rescue attempt where the plaintiff acts under a reasonable belief that the endangered party's peril continues."

Does it matter that he crossed freeway lanes on foot?

Comparative fault applies, but helping is not fault in itself

An insurer may argue that crossing live freeway lanes at night was careless. Michigan reduces damages by the injured person's share of fault under MCL 600.2959, and in an auto negligence case a person more than 50 percent at fault cannot recover noneconomic damages under MCL 500.3135(2)(b). The firm's guide to Michigan's comparative fault rule walks through the math.

The rescue doctrine changes how that argument works. In Solomon, six of the seven justices agreed that a rescuer is not treated as comparatively negligent merely for exposing himself to an increased risk of harm in order to save another, so long as undertaking the rescue was not unreasonable and it was carried out in a reasonable manner. The Court of Appeals applied that two-step test in a published 2016 decision, In re Skidmore Estate, 315 Mich App 470, noting that whether rescuers acted reasonably "is a question of fact, not a question of law." Solomon also made clear that the test looks at what a reasonable person in the rescuer's position would have done, so it can apply even when the person being helped turns out not to have been in actual danger.

Several drivers, several shares

When more than one person's conduct contributed, Michigan allocates fault to each in proportion, including people who are not parties to the lawsuit, under MCL 600.2957, and liability is generally several only, not joint, under MCL 600.2956. That makes it important to identify every vehicle, owner and policy early. An owner who was not driving can be liable for negligent operation of the vehicle by someone driving it with the owner's express or implied consent or knowledge under MCL 257.401 (section explorer).

Evidence that matters and how fast it can disappear

No commercial vehicle has been reported, so most of the evidence has no fixed retention period:

• Event data recorders. In light vehicles equipped with one, 49 CFR Part 563 governs what the recorder captures, not how long anyone must keep it. The data may be lost when a vehicle is repaired, salvaged or scrapped.
• Video. Dashcam footage from passing drivers and any roadside camera recordings may be overwritten if no one asks for them.
• Calls and dispatch records. 911 audio and dispatch logs help fix the timeline between the first crash and the second collision.
• The state police investigation. Its reconstruction will be central. Under MCL 257.731, a traffic ticket or civil infraction finding generally cannot be used as evidence in the civil case.

A Michigan court may sanction a party that failed to preserve evidence, and a jury may, but need not, infer that missing evidence was unfavorable (Brenner v Kolk), which is why preservation requests go out early.

Who could be legally responsible

Nothing reported so far establishes that anyone did anything wrong. The possibilities, each with the condition that would make it so:

• The driver of the vehicle that struck him, if that driver failed to use ordinary care approaching lanes that police said were blocked by a disabled vehicle. Police said there was no indication alcohol or drugs were a factor; that does not settle the civil question either way.
• The driver or drivers in the first crash, if negligence by one of them led to that crash, under the rescue doctrine.
• A vehicle owner, if a driver was not the owner and drove with the owner's consent or knowledge.
• An employer, if any driver was working at the time. Nothing reported suggests this.
• A road authority, only if a defect in the roadway itself contributed. Nothing reported points to the roadway.

Michigan deadlines that apply

The Michigan injury deadline calculator applies these rules to specific dates.

Questions people are asking

Does the insurer of the vehicle that hit him pay the funeral costs? Not under no-fault. Funeral and burial benefits come through PIP from a household policy, or through the Assigned Claims Plan, in the amount the policy sets between $1,750 and $5,000 (MCL 500.3107). Funeral expenses the estate is liable for can also be part of a wrongful death claim against a negligent driver.

Can someone who stopped to help be blamed for his own death? An insurer can argue comparative fault, but under the rescue doctrine a reasonable decision to help is not itself fault. A jury asks whether the rescue was carried out in a reasonable manner; any share of fault reduces damages, and more than 50 percent bars noneconomic damages in an auto case.

Does a civil claim depend on whether the other driver is charged? No. A civil claim turns on ordinary negligence and does not require a criminal charge or a ticket.

Who brings a wrongful death claim in Michigan? The personal representative of the estate files it under MCL 600.2922, and any recovery is shared among the family members the act lists, such as a spouse, children, parents, and brothers and sisters. The firm's guide to wrongful death claims in Detroit covers the process.

If you are dealing with a situation like this

When someone is killed after stopping to help at a crash, the family often faces several insurers at once: a household no-fault carrier, the insurers for each driver involved, and sometimes the Assigned Claims Plan. A free consultation can clarify which policy is first in line, which deadlines are already running, how a fault argument against a rescuer is likely to be framed, and what evidence should be requested before it is lost. Call (313) 800-0000 or request a free consultation. Koussan Law has offices in Detroit, Dearborn Heights and Marquette, and the team speaks English, Spanish and Arabic. See the firm's pages on pedestrian accident claims, highway and freeway crashes and wrongful death claims.

Sources

1. FOX 2 Detroit, "Motorist fatally struck while helping after crash on Lodge Freeway," October 4, 2026. Read the report
2. The Detroit News (via MSN), "Man struck, killed while rendering aid following Southfield freeway crash," October 4, 2026. Read the report
3. Detroit Free Press (via MSN), "Driver killed while helping at Lodge Freeway crash," October 4, 2026. Read the report
4. The Macomb Daily, "Good Samaritan killed trying to aid Southfield motorist with disabled vehicle," October 4, 2026. Read the report

Primary law cited:

• No-fault: MCL 500.3107, MCL 500.3108, MCL 500.3114, MCL 500.3115, MCL 500.3135, MCL 500.3145, MCL 500.3174
• Wrongful death, fault and deadlines: MCL 600.2922, MCL 600.2956, MCL 600.2957, MCL 600.2959, MCL 600.5805, MCL 600.5852, MCL 600.6431, MCL 691.1404
• Vehicle code: MCL 257.401, MCL 257.731
• Federal: 49 CFR Part 563
• Cases: Solomon v Shuell, 435 Mich 104 (1990); Sweetman v State Highway Department, 137 Mich App 14 (1984); In re Skidmore Estate, 315 Mich App 470 (2016); Daher v Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC (Mich. July 30, 2024; Docket No. 165377); Brenner v Kolk, 226 Mich App 149 (1997)