Ann Arbor office · Serving Washtenaw County
Local help for Washtenaw County built around the evidence, coverage, defendants, and law that fit your actual case. The first review is free.
Call about an Ann Arbor matter when three or more vehicles, several impacts, an unidentified participant, or competing accounts make it unclear which event started the collision and who caused each later impact. The first Ann Arbor review identifies the initiating event, precise impact order, each vehicle and occupant, independent witnesses, physical and digital clocks, every driver and owner, PIP, liability limits, UM/UIM, releases, and claimed injuries. Campus traffic, curb activity, I-94 and US-23 travel, construction controls, pedestrians and bicycles, and several turning movements can complicate impact order and comparative fault. Ann Arbor cases often involve university traffic, regional commuters, US-23 and I-94 crashes, downtown video, campus-related evidence, and treatment through a major academic medical system. The broader service area includes Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Saline, Chelsea, Plymouth, Canton, Monroe, Milan, and Dexter. Treatment can involve University of Michigan Health, Trinity Health Ann Arbor, and regional rehabilitation providers. Potential court paths: Washtenaw County Trial Court, Ann Arbor district courts, Monroe County courts, and federal court may be involved depending on the defendants; the correct forum and parties still require claim-specific review. Local corridors and incident locations include US-23, I-94, M-14, State Street, Washtenaw Avenue, Stadium Boulevard, and downtown Ann Arbor all create local evidence issues. Ann Arbor Police and FOIA staff, U-M departments, Washtenaw County, road agencies, employers, institutions, property operators, contractors, and insurers may each hold a different record. The file should separate the initiating event from every later impact, fix each vehicle and witness in time and space, preserve vehicle and video data, and map each driver, owner, policy, claimed injury, and proposed share of fault. The Michigan multi-vehicle accident guide explains the statewide law; this page is limited to the Ann Arbor record and decision points.
Ann Arbor Police and FOIA staff, U-M departments, Washtenaw County, road agencies, employers, institutions, property operators, contractors, and insurers may each hold a different record. The file should separate the initiating event from every later impact, fix each vehicle and witness in time and space, preserve vehicle and video data, and map each driver, owner, policy, claimed injury, and proposed share of fault.
Vehicles may be repaired or salvaged, event data overwritten, video erased, debris removed, witnesses lost, and separate insurers may obtain statements before one synchronized timeline exists.
It costs nothing to learn where you stand. Call (734) 882-2646 or start a free case review.
Police and road agencies, platforms, drivers, passengers, vehicle owners, private camera holders, transit or parking systems, insurers, and medical providers may each hold a different part of the record.
Ann Arbor Police and FOIA staff, U-M departments, Washtenaw County, road agencies, employers, institutions, property operators, contractors, and insurers may each hold a different record. Possible image sources include campus facilities, city parking, transit vehicles, hospitals, downtown businesses, apartments, fleet cameras, bicycles, and involved vehicles. Lane-level proof can identify the Ann Arbor initiating event and later impacts without assuming final vehicle positions tell the whole story.
Each driver and owner, manufacturers and download experts as applicable, tow yards, repair facilities, salvage actors, insurers, employers, and fleet systems. Separate clocks, speeds, braking, steering, impacts, movement, and post-crash handling may support or contradict the first account.
Investigating police, MSP, fire and EMS, dispatch centers, road authorities, prosecutors or courts when applicable, and authorized report systems. These materials may record changing accounts and times, but a report or citation does not make the civil allocation conclusive.
Ann Arbor Police and FOIA staff, U-M departments, Washtenaw County, road agencies, employers, institutions, property operators, contractors, and insurers may each hold a different record. The file should separate the initiating event from every later impact, fix each vehicle and witness in time and space, preserve vehicle and video data, and map each driver, owner, policy, claimed injury, and proposed share of fault.
Swipe horizontally to view all columns.
| Evidence | Possible holder | Why it may matter |
|---|---|---|
| Scene geometry, debris, marks, damage, traffic controls, weather, independent witnesses, photographs, and video | Ann Arbor Police and FOIA staff, U-M departments, Washtenaw County, road agencies, employers, institutions, property operators, contractors, and insurers may each hold a different record. Possible image sources include campus facilities, city parking, transit vehicles, hospitals, downtown businesses, apartments, fleet cameras, bicycles, and involved vehicles | Lane-level proof can identify the Ann Arbor initiating event and later impacts without assuming final vehicle positions tell the whole story. |
| Each vehicle, event-data recorder, infotainment, dashcam, phone, telematics, damage, tow, repair, and salvage record | Each driver and owner, manufacturers and download experts as applicable, tow yards, repair facilities, salvage actors, insurers, employers, and fleet systems | Separate clocks, speeds, braking, steering, impacts, movement, and post-crash handling may support or contradict the first account. |
| 911 calls, dispatch, CAD, radio, UD-10, supplemental reports, measurements, citations, and responder video | Investigating police, MSP, fire and EMS, dispatch centers, road authorities, prosecutors or courts when applicable, and authorized report systems | These materials may record changing accounts and times, but a report or citation does not make the civil allocation conclusive. |
| Driver, owner, employer, policy, limit, release, injury, treatment, wage, and prior-event records | University of Michigan Health, Trinity Health Ann Arbor, and regional rehabilitation providers; every driver and owner, employers, household and commercial insurers, UM/UIM carriers, medical providers, and the injured people | Fault allocation, nonparty issues, policy exhaustion, releases, contribution, PIP, medical causation, and damages must be mapped person by person. |
Campus traffic, curb activity, I-94 and US-23 travel, construction controls, pedestrians and bicycles, and several turning movements can complicate impact order and comparative fault. Ann Arbor cases often involve university traffic, regional commuters, US-23 and I-94 crashes, downtown video, campus-related evidence, and treatment through a major academic medical system. The broader service area includes Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Saline, Chelsea, Plymouth, Canton, Monroe, Milan, and Dexter. Treatment can involve University of Michigan Health, Trinity Health Ann Arbor, and regional rehabilitation providers. Potential court paths: Washtenaw County Trial Court, Ann Arbor district courts, Monroe County courts, and federal court may be involved depending on the defendants; the correct forum and parties still require claim-specific review.
The file should separate the initiating event from every later impact, fix each vehicle and witness in time and space, preserve vehicle and video data, and map each driver, owner, policy, claimed injury, and proposed share of fault. We move quickly on AAPD, Washtenaw County, campus-area, business-video, medical-record, and insurer evidence before it becomes harder to obtain.
Campus traffic, curb activity, I-94 and US-23 travel, construction controls, pedestrians and bicycles, and several turning movements can complicate impact order and comparative fault. Likely holders include campus facilities, city parking, transit vehicles, hospitals, downtown businesses, apartments, fleet cameras, bicycles, and involved vehicles; availability, retention, and synchronization must be verified.
PIP, each third-party claim, comparative and nonparty fault, liability limits, UM/UIM, releases, medical causation, and damages require person-specific proof across Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Saline, Chelsea, Plymouth, Canton, Monroe, Milan, and Dexter.
Sources checked Michigan Legislature: MCL 600.2957 allocation of fault Michigan Legislature: MCL 600.6304 percentage of fault Michigan State Police: Traffic Crash Reporting Unit FAQ Ann Arbor public-records request Ann Arbor construction inspections · Checked August 13, 2026
These are possible legal paths, not automatic claims. The answer depends on the event, defendant, policy, injuries, forum, and current law.
The initiating event, later impacts, each driver’s conduct, vehicle positions, physical and digital evidence, comparative fault, and nonparty issues should be reconstructed before percentages are assigned.
No-Fault PIP priority is separate from third-party fault. Treatment, prior health, symptoms, crash forces, different impacts, work loss, and function must support which collision caused the claimed harm.
Each driver and owner may have different liability coverage; employer or fleet policies, UM/UIM, limits, releases, settlements, and contribution questions require a complete party-and-policy map.
Answer five short questions to organize the timing, harm, possible claims, evidence risk, and current status. There is no sign-up and no dollar estimate. Your answers are included only if you submit the free case review below. The result is general information, not legal advice.
Question 1 of 5
The primary authorities below support the legal framework. They do not replace a claim-specific deadline, coverage, immunity, or liability analysis.
MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304 address allocation and percentages of fault. They do not allow a webpage, citation, or final vehicle position to assign the percentages in a particular crash.
MCL 257.402 may create prima facie negligence in circumstances it covers, but the presumption is rebuttable and does not automatically make the last driver responsible for every link in a chain reaction.
Comparative fault, No-Fault benefits, serious impairment, UM/UIM contracts, and injury causation use related but separate legal and evidentiary analyses.
Record the exact location, date and time, people, vehicles or equipment, movements and impacts, conditions, responders, witnesses, cameras, reports, post-event handling, care, and insurer contacts.
Scene geometry, debris, marks, damage, traffic controls, weather, independent witnesses, photographs, and video: Ann Arbor Police and FOIA staff, U-M departments, Washtenaw County, road agencies, employers, institutions, property operators, contractors, and insurers may each hold a different record. Possible image sources include campus facilities, city parking, transit vehicles, hospitals, downtown businesses, apartments, fleet cameras, bicycles, and involved vehicles Each vehicle, event-data recorder, infotainment, dashcam, phone, telematics, damage, tow, repair, and salvage record: Each driver and owner, manufacturers and download experts as applicable, tow yards, repair facilities, salvage actors, insurers, employers, and fleet systems 911 calls, dispatch, CAD, radio, UD-10, supplemental reports, measurements, citations, and responder video: Investigating police, MSP, fire and EMS, dispatch centers, road authorities, prosecutors or courts when applicable, and authorized report systems Driver, owner, employer, policy, limit, release, injury, treatment, wage, and prior-event records: University of Michigan Health, Trinity Health Ann Arbor, and regional rehabilitation providers; every driver and owner, employers, household and commercial insurers, UM/UIM carriers, medical providers, and the injured people
The last vehicle, first impact, final resting position, rear damage, citation, or police diagram does not automatically assign every percentage of fault in a chain reaction. Several impacts do not by themselves prove which collision caused a particular injury, what coverage applies, or whether every driver belongs in the claim.
Apply the correct Michigan law to the verified Ann Arbor parties, work and vehicle relationships, policies, public actors, medical proof, liens, damages, and claim-specific timing before any release.
Actual review excerpts about injury representation, communication, medical-bill pressure, and support. The page-specific claim still depends on its own evidence, law, and deadlines.
We have not gone to trial yet, but for the past 2 years I wouldn't choose anyone else to stand behind me and my child. If you want injury lawyers and team members who actually care, CHOOSE Christopher Trainor.
Dealing with insurance companies and medical billing is always a pain in the but and didn’t want anyone taking advantage of me and my situation. This team is number 1 in my book.
I recently had the pleasure of working with Chris Trainor, Amy DeRouin and their dedicated team regarding two personal claims. I cannot recommend them highly enough! From our very first consultation, it was clear that I was in capable and caring hands. I would trust them with any personal legal matter.
Built on the local record.
Scene evidence, agency files, court practice, and medical proof in Ann Arbor shape what a claim actually is. The Ann Arbor office builds that record first, then evaluates resolution.
Send the basics. We will check the facts, coverage, deadlines, evidence, and whether hiring us makes sense. No obligation.
Serving Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Saline, Chelsea, Plymouth, Canton, Monroe, Milan, and Dexter.
Call before visiting so the team can confirm the right meeting location and time.
Every case at Christopher Trainor & Associates is a team effort. Our attorneys collaborate on strategy, discovery, and litigation so you get the full strength of the firm behind you—not just a single lawyer. We have built our practice on this collaborative model since 1989.
Meet Our Attorneys
