#Tammy may white pages michigan trial#

#Tammy may white pages michigan trial#

Therefore, the trial court correctly declined to grant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the basis of this issue. Considering the available evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether plaintiff’s fall was caused by black ice on defendant’s property. Defendant refers to the section of plaintiff’s testimony when she responded to the question: “Do you know what caused your fall?” Plaintiff answered “no.” But as plaintiff points -2- out, she also stated that when she fell, she “felt ice.” Moreover, she later clarified that it was ice that caused her to fall. The parties point to different portions of plaintiff’s deposition testimony to support their positions. The causation question in this case is whether plaintiff fell as a result of ice or for some other reason. Rather, the plaintiff must present substantial evidence from which a jury may conclude that more likely than not, but for the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred. Nor is it sufficient to submit a causation theory that, while factually supported, is, at best, just as possible as another theory. However, a basis in only slight evidence is not enough. In Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 164-165 516 NW2d 475 (1994), our Supreme Court held: t a minimum, a causation theory must have some basis in established fact. Whether plaintiff’s fall was caused by black ice is a question of causation in fact. CAUSATION The trial court determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed because the parties differed in their view of the testimony related to the cause of plaintiff’s fall, and therefore, summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) was inappropriate for this issue. “There is a genuine issue of material fact when reasonable minds could differ on an issue after viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP, 481 Mich 419, 425 751 NW2d 8 (2008). Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In evaluating a motion for summary disposition brought under this subsection, a trial court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties, MCR 2.116(G)(5), in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint.

Issues of law are also reviewed de novo.” Slaughter v Blarney Castle Oil Co, 281 Mich App 474, 477 760 NW2d 287 (2008) (citation omitted). STANDARD OF REVIEW “This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, stating that while there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation, the ice was open and obvious, and therefore, summary disposition in favor of defendant was warranted. 1- After plaintiff filed her complaint, defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff could not establish causation and that any ice present in defendant’s parking lot was open and obvious, and not unreasonably dangerous or unavoidable. The weather conditions were described as “fair,” although the data indicated that there was “light snow” on the previous day. Weather data submitted to the trial court indicated that the temperature on the day of the fall ranged from a low temperature of 18 degrees to a high of 30 degrees. Later in the deposition, she stated that after she fell, she “felt ice.” And when asked later to clarify her earlier statement that she did not know what caused her fall, she agreed that it was her opinion that ice caused her to fall. In her deposition testimony, plaintiff at first indicated that she did not know what caused her to fall. Plaintiff attributes the fall to “black ice” accumulated on the pavement outside the gas station store. Plaintiff injured her wrist when she slipped and fell while an invitee at defendant’s gas station. In this slip-and-fall case, plaintiff appeals by right the trial court order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Before: SAWYER, P.J., and STEPHENS and RICK, JJ. 19-112402-NO Defendant-Appellee, and ADMIRAL PETROLEUM COMPANY, Defendant. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TAMMY GARZA, UNPUBLISHED Plaintiff-Appellant, v GPM INVESTMENTS, LLC, doing business as ADMIRAL GAS STATION, No. If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.