Michigan Texting & Distracted Driving Civil Liability (MCL 257.602b)
Michigan’s distracted-driving statute, MCL 257.602b, was rewritten by 2023 PA 33 and took effect June 30, 2023. The new version bars holding or using almost any mobile electronic device while driving. For Michigan injury victims, the rewrite matters less for the citation than for what it does inside a civil tort case — particularly under MCL 500.3135 serious-impairment analysis.
What the 2023 Rewrite Actually Says
The pre-2023 version of MCL 257.602b targeted texting and reading text messages. The 2023 amendment broadened the prohibition to “hold or use a mobile electronic device” while operating a motor vehicle. The covered conduct now includes:
- Sending or receiving telephone calls (manual operation; hands-free is permitted).
- Sending, receiving, or reading text or email messages.
- Viewing, recording, or transmitting video.
- Accessing, reading, or posting to a social networking site.
- Watching or recording broadcasts.
Hands-free use through Bluetooth, a single-button voice activation, or a single tap to start or end is generally permitted for adult drivers. Drivers under 18 and Level 1 or Level 2 graduated-license holders face additional restrictions.
From Ticket to Tort — Why the Statute Matters in Your Civil Case
Negligence Per Se Framework
Michigan treats a violation of a safety statute as evidence of negligence under the framework of Zeni v. Anderson, 397 Mich 117 (1976). A driver who is cited for using a hand-held device at the time of the crash hands the plaintiff a clean evidentiary anchor. The civil jury is generally permitted to consider that statutory violation through M Civ JI 12.05, with the question framed as whether the violation was a proximate cause of the injury.
Plugging the Distracted-Driving Theory Into MCL 500.3135
Michigan is a no-fault state. Third-party bodily injury claims must clear MCL 500.3135‘s serious-impairment-of-body-function threshold under the McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010), construction. The texting violation does not, by itself, satisfy the threshold — the plaintiff still has to show an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects general ability to lead a normal life. What the statute does is help the plaintiff defeat comparative-fault reductions and shore up the liability narrative at deposition.
Comparative Fault and the 50% Bar
Under MCL 600.6304, a Michigan plaintiff whose share of fault exceeds 50% is barred from recovering non-economic damages. A documented texting violation by the defendant pushes the comparative-fault allocation toward the defense side, which is often the difference between a recoverable claim and a barred one.
Proving Distracted Driving in 2026 Litigation
| Evidence source | What it shows | How to preserve it |
|---|---|---|
| Police crash report (UD-10) | Citation issued for MCL 257.602b; officer narrative noting phone in hand | Order the official UD-10 from MSP; do not rely on the carbonless copy |
| Cellular records | Outgoing call/text timestamps matched to the crash time | Subpoena via the carrier under MCR 2.305 with a litigation hold letter on the defendant |
| App-level metadata | WhatsApp, iMessage, Snapchat, TikTok use during the operating window | Forensic imaging of the device with chain-of-custody documentation |
| Vehicle infotainment / CarPlay | Connected-app activity, navigation reroutes, voice commands | Preserve via NHTSA-style EDR or vehicle telematics download |
| Dash cam & surveillance video | Visible phone use, swerving, late braking | Send preservation letters within days — many cameras overwrite weekly |
| Eyewitness statements | Saw defendant looking down at phone before impact | Recorded statement and signed declaration before memories fade |
The Spoliation Risk Cuts Both Ways
Michigan’s spoliation doctrine under Brenner v. Kolk, 226 Mich App 149 (1997), requires preservation of evidence once litigation is reasonably anticipated. That obligation reaches the defendant driver’s phone. A plaintiff who learns the defendant wiped their device or rolled their cellular plan into a new line after the crash should move quickly for an adverse-inference instruction. The same duty also runs the other way — a plaintiff who deletes their own texts or social-media posts about the crash invites the same sanction.
PIP, Mini-Tort, and the Distracted-Driving Plaintiff
The driver’s distraction does not change the first-party PIP framework. The injured occupant or non-occupant still pursues PIP benefits under MCL 500.3105, subject to the priority rules in MCL 500.3114 / 500.3115 and the one-year-back rule under MCL 500.3145. The distraction citation matters at the third-party bodily-injury stage and at the mini-tort property-damage stage under MCL 500.3135(3)(e), where a clear at-fault designation makes the $3,000 cap recovery straightforward.
Deadlines — The Same Clocks Apply
- PIP demand: Generally one year from each medical expense, capped by MCL 500.3145’s notice and suit provisions.
- Third-party bodily injury: Three years from the crash under MCL 600.5805(2).
- Wrongful death (when the distracted driver caused a fatality): Three years from death, with the personal-representative procedure under MCL 600.2922 and the saving framework under MCL 600.5852.
- Government-entity defendant (e.g., the distracted driver was on a municipal route on duty): 120-day notice under MCL 691.1404 plus the underlying MCL 600.5805 clock.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a texting citation guarantee I win the civil case?
No. A citation is admissible evidence of negligence under M Civ JI 12.05 in many circuits, but the plaintiff still has to prove causation, an MCL 500.3135 serious impairment, and damages. The citation makes the negligence portion of the proof significantly easier; it does not collapse the entire case.
What if the officer did not write a ticket but I know the defendant was on their phone?
A citation is helpful but not necessary. Cellular and app records, eyewitness testimony, and forensic device imaging can establish use at the time of the crash without a written infraction. The negligence-per-se inference is weaker without the citation, but ordinary negligence remains available.
Are hands-free calls really legal under the new statute?
Hands-free use of a mobile electronic device through a Bluetooth headset, vehicle integration, or a single-button voice activation is generally permitted for drivers 18 and older. Drivers under 18 face additional restrictions under the graduated-license framework. Even where hands-free use is legal under MCL 257.602b, a civil jury can still consider it under ordinary negligence if the use contributed to the crash.
My teenager was the one driving and texting. What changes?
The same civil-liability framework applies, but the GDL restrictions are stricter and the family’s exposure can extend to MCL 257.401 owner-liability claims against the vehicle owner. Negligent-entrustment theory under Perin v. Peuler, 373 Mich 531 (1964), and its progeny can attach independent liability to the parent who knew or should have known of a pattern of distracted driving.
Can I get punitive damages for distracted driving in Michigan?
Michigan does not permit traditional punitive damages outside narrow exceptions. Plaintiffs sometimes pursue exemplary damages where the conduct was particularly reckless — a sustained pattern of phone use, a documented refusal to put the device down, or social-media posts boasting about driving distractions. The bar is high and the legal theory is fact-intensive.
What if the defendant claims they were using Apple CarPlay legally?
The statute permits hands-free operation, including a single tap to start or end. The civil analysis is independent of the criminal infraction analysis. A jury can still find that even legal hands-free operation contributed to the crash if the cognitive distraction was significant. The defense will argue legal compliance; the plaintiff’s counsel will focus on the reasonableness of the choice in that moment.
Injured by a Distracted Driver in Michigan?
Free, confidential review with Attorney Manny Chahal. No fee unless we recover.
Call 1-844-624-2425