Denise Carrecker v. Seth Berry Gold
328276
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- On Jan 21, 2012, Denise Carreker was rear-ended; it is undisputed that defendant Seth Gold was rear-ended by Erica Banks, who settled and is not a party to this appeal.
- Carreker sued Gold alleging his negligent driving caused the collision and her injuries; Gold moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
- Gold argued the crash was a chain-reaction and that he was struck from behind by Banks, so he was not the cause of Carreker’s injury.
- Carreker testified she saw Gold drive recklessly, cross lanes, and run into the back of her stopped vehicle; Gold testified he had stopped behind Carreker before Banks hit him.
- The trial court granted Gold’s motion, finding Carreker failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on causation (cause in fact/proximate cause).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Carreker’s testimony created a factual dispute as to whether Gold’s conduct was a cause in fact of her injuries; the court declined to address an alternative unpreserved contention about the severity of injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact on cause in fact/proximate cause | Carreker testified she saw Gold drive recklessly, cross lanes, and strike her — this raises a question whether Gold’s negligence caused her injury | Gold argued he stopped behind Carreker and was then rear-ended by Banks, so Gold’s conduct did not cause Carreker’s injury (chain-reaction defense) | Reversed: Carreker’s testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to her, created a triable issue whether Gold’s actions were a cause in fact; summary disposition was improper |
| Whether trial court relied on inadmissible evidence in granting summary disposition | Carreker argued the defendant relied on inadmissible evidence | Gold conceded some evidence was inadmissible but said the court did not rely on it | Court noted the evidence was inadmissible but found the trial court had not relied on it and cautioned Gold against using such evidence on remand |
| Whether defendant may raise alternative grounds for affirmance (serious impairment) on appeal | Carreker argued issue was unpreserved and should not be considered | Gold argued alternative ground supports affirmance | Court declined to address the alternative ground as it was not raised or decided below (unpreserved) |
| Whether credibility/resolution of factual disputes is proper at summary disposition | Carreker argued credibility should be decided by the jury and factual disputes remain | Gold relied on his version that he stopped before Banks hit him | Court held credibility disputes cannot be resolved on summary disposition; issues of fact remain for the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Recca, 492 Mich 169 (review of summary disposition is de novo)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party on MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Craig v. Oakwood Hosp., 471 Mich 67 (cause in fact prerequisite to proximate cause analysis)
- Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich 153 (circumstantial causation must permit reasonable inferences, not mere speculation)
- Haliw v. Sterling Heights, 464 Mich 297 (definition of cause in fact: but-for causation)
- White v. Taylor Distrib. Co., Inc., 275 Mich App 615 (courts may not resolve credibility or factual disputes on summary disposition)