Estate of William Butler Sr v. Gustave Janssens Jr
334888
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- Decedent fell outside defendant Janssens’s barbershop; plaintiff (his estate, by personal representative Mary Butler) sued for premises liability alleging a defective concrete step caused the fall.
- Plaintiff’s two causation theories: (1) a gap trapped the walker wheel; (2) the step was wobbly/unstable and moved when decedent stood on it.
- At deposition, Mary Butler (the only eyewitness) did not see the fall’s cause, admitted uncertainty, and described only speculative observations about the walker and a gap.
- After defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), plaintiff submitted affidavits (including from her son-in-law) asserting the step wobbled; these affidavits were submitted after the deposition testimony.
- The trial court granted summary disposition, finding insufficient evidence of causation and that plaintiff’s later affidavits could not create a genuine factual dispute to overcome her deposition testimony.
- This appeal challenges the trial court’s ruling on causation; the court affirmed, concluding plaintiff’s causation theories were speculative and unsupported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of causation (but-for/proximate cause) | The circumstantial evidence (walker caught in gap; or wobbly step) creates a factual dispute for jury | Record lacks evidence linking the step to the fall; plaintiff’s testimony is speculative | Court: No genuine issue of material fact on causation; summary disposition affirmed |
| Whether post-deposition affidavits create a factual dispute overcoming deposition testimony | Affidavits describing a wobbly step support causation and contradict deposition uncertainty | Affidavits cannot be used to contrive an issue after damaging deposition testimony | Court: Cannot rely on affidavits that contradict prior deposition testimony to create a genuine issue |
| Whether circumstantial evidence suffices to prove causation | Circumstantial proof can establish causation here because eyewitness testimony was limited | Circumstantial proof must still be more than mere speculation and have basis in established fact | Court: Circumstantial evidence presented was speculative and insufficient to satisfy "more likely than not" causation standard |
| (Alternate) Whether the condition was open and obvious | Plaintiff argued factual dispute exists on condition’s character | Defendant argued condition was open and obvious (affirmative defense) | Court did not decide this issue because it disposed of the case on causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Arias v Talon Dev Group, 239 Mich. App. 265 (tests factual support for MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Latham v Barton Malow Co, 480 Mich. 105 (summary-disposition standard; view evidence for nonmoving party)
- West v General Motors Corp, 469 Mich. 177 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Mouzon v Achievable Visions, 308 Mich. App. 415 (elements of negligence/premises liability)
- Wiley v Henry Ford Cottage Hosp, 257 Mich. App. 488 (proof of causation requires cause in fact and proximate cause)
- Dykes v William Beaumont Hosp, 246 Mich. App. 471 (affidavits cannot contrive issues contradicting deposition testimony)
- Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich. 153 (circumstantial causation requires more than mere speculation; plaintiff must show "more likely than not")