Gregory Taylor v. Michigan Petroleum Technologies Inc
331048
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Gregory Taylor and James Nieznajko sued Michigan Petroleum Technologies (MPT) after a fire at MPT’s plant led to an ordered evacuation; Taylor alleged personal and property damages from the evacuation.
- Taylor testified in deposition about non-economic harms and limited out‑of‑pocket expenses caused by the evacuation; parties stipulated evacuation resulted from the fire.
- MPT moved for dismissal of Taylor’s negligence claim based on spoliation of evidence and alternatively under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (summary disposition).
- The trial court granted judgment for MPT, but did not clearly state whether dismissal rested on spoliation or on lack of proof of causation.
- Judge Stephens (concurring in part, dissenting in part) concluded the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the negligence claim as a spoliation sanction and that material factual disputes existed on negligence causation; she would affirm dismissal of the nuisance claim but reverse and remand on negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of Taylor’s negligence claim was a proper spoliation sanction | Dismissal was too drastic; trial court failed to consider lesser remedies and abused discretion | Spoliation warranted dismissal given missing evidence | Court erred to dismiss without considering lesser sanctions; remand required for consideration of alternatives (Stephens J.) |
| Whether Taylor presented sufficient evidence of causation for negligence | Taylor’s deposition and the parties’ stipulation that evacuation followed the fire supply causation for his non‑economic and out‑of‑pocket damages | No genuine issue of material fact; insufficient competent evidence linking MPT’s negligence to Taylor’s damages | There are material questions of fact on causation; Taylor’s testimony sufficed for some damages (per Stephens) |
| Whether dismissal was properly considered on reconsideration | Reconsideration requires palpable error; trial court abused discretion in denying reconsideration regarding spoliation sanction | Trial court implicitly found no adequate basis to reinstate negligence claim | Stephens would find palpable error and would grant reconsideration to allow negligence claim to proceed unless proper sanctions are later imposed |
| Whether nuisance claim summary disposition was proper | N/A (Taylor did not contest dismissal in this concurrence/dissent) | N/A | Stephens concurs that summary disposition of nuisance claim was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloemendaal v Town & Country Sports Ctr, Inc., 255 Mich. App. 207 (2003) (dismissal for spoliation is drastic; court must consider lesser sanctions and evaluate options on the record)
- Woodington v Shokoohi, 288 Mich. App. 352 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich. 157 (2011) (elements required to prove negligence)
- Frankenmuth Ins Co v Poll, 311 Mich. App. 442 (2015) (abuse of discretion standard for reconsideration)
- Huntington Nat’l Bank v Daniel J Aronoff Living Trust, 305 Mich. App. 496 (2014) (standard for establishing palpable error on reconsideration)