By Kelly Caplan
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT—A defendant driver whose wheel and tire broke off his car while driving and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle was properly granted summary disposition in an automobile negligence matter even though the plaintiff argued there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant was negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The plaintiff contended the trial court erred when it denied his motion for reconsideration because he had presented new evidence to establish that granting summary disposition was premature, and because he had presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant was negligent.
But the Court of Appeals panel, citing the 2018 case of Pugno v. Blue Harvest Farms LLC, disagreed.
“[A]lthough a ‘plaintiff must establish that the event was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, plaintiff must also produce some evidence of wrongdoing beyond the mere happening of the event,’” the panel held. “... Plaintiff produced no evidence to counter defendant’s contentions or establish wrongdoing beyond the mere happening of the event. Thus, plaintiff failed to meet his burden in order to avail himself of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.”
The per curiam decision, Estate of Charleston v. Carroll, was issued by Judges Jane M. Beckering, David H. Sawyer, and Michael F. Gadola.
Ryan A. Ford, counsel for the plaintiff, declined to comment. Mary T. Nemeth, who represented the defendant, could not be reached before deadline.
The case
In 2017, the defendant was headed westbound on Interstate 96 when the left front tire and wheel detached from his vehicle, bounced across the freeway, went over the median wall, and struck the plaintiff’s eastbound vehicle.
The plaintiff filed a complaint in 2018, alleging that the defendant breached his duty to exercise reasonable care and caution on the highway, maintain control of his vehicle, and keep his vehicle in reasonable repair.
Moreover, the plaintiff argued that, as a result of defendant’s negligence, the tire and wheel of defendant’s vehicle “snapped off” and struck plaintiff’s vehicle, which caused him serious injuries.
Discovery in the matter was to close in November 2018, according to the scheduling order, but the defendant filed a motion for summary disposition in May 2018. With his motion, the defendant filed an affidavit maintaining that he had no knowledge or warning of a problem with the tire or wheel prior to them becoming detached from his vehicle.
The Oakland County Circuit Court granted summary disposition to the defendant.
The plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration with the defendant’s deposition transcript attached, asserting that the defendant revealed new and relevant information in his deposition.
The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
COA analysis
The panel began its analysis by addressing the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court’s grant of summary disposition was premature and prevented him from conducting further discovery to support his negligence claim.
According to the appeals court opinion, the trial court granted this motion approximately 12 weeks before the close of discovery. At that time, the admissible evidence consisted mainly of the defendant’s affidavit, which had been filed with the court 12 weeks prior.
“Although the summary disposition order was granted before the close of discovery, plaintiff presented no independent evidence to establish that further discovery presented a fair likelihood of uncovering factual support,” the panel said.
The panel noted that the defendant’s affidavit said he had no knowledge of tire and wheel problems, and no reason to believe there were problems existed until immediately before the tire disconnected.
“Plaintiff submitted no evidence to dispute defendant’s evidence,” the panel wrote. “Plaintiff merely argued that further discovery could lead to evidence to support plaintiff’s position. Thus, plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing that the order granting summary disposition was premature.”
Res ipsa loquitur
The panel then turned to the plaintiff’s argument that granting summary disposition was improper because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant was negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The panel held that the plaintiff did not meet the conditions set forth by the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in Pugno.
“A lay jury could likely determine that lug nut stems do not ordinarily break off a vehicle instantaneously and with no notice, causing a tire and wheel to detach from a moving vehicle, in the absence of negligence,” the panel said, noting that the plaintiff “produced no evidence to counter defendant’s contentions or establish wrongdoing beyond the mere happening of the event.”
Spoliation
Finally, the panel looked to the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred when it failed to reverse its order granting summary disposition and reinstate the case to allow plaintiff to file a motion for sanctions because the defendant engaged in spoliation.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant should have known that the tire and wheel were crucial pieces of evidence that could have been inspected to determine whether the defendant was negligent.
But the panel explained that the plaintiff introduced this argument for the first time on reconsideration, and could have presented this new legal theory to the court before the court granted.
“This evidence was revealed during defendant’s deposition two weeks before the motion hearing, but plaintiff did not raise this argument, and a trial court does not abuse its discretion for refusing to consider new legal theories or facts that could have been pled or argued when the motion was initially decided,” the panel concluded. “The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.”
Published: Tue, Sep 01, 2020
