Michael D Tuck v. Wixom Smokers Shop
330784
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 16, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Terry Tuck (guardian) sued defendants (Wixom Smokers Shop, its owners/operators) after Michael D. Tuck ingested “spice”/K2 on June 3, 2011 and later suffered severe paranoia, hallucinations, and set fire to the family home days later.
- Michael was not deposed; identity of seller and source of the specific product relied primarily on testimony from friend Jared Alcorn.
- Alcorn testified Michael went to defendants’ store that day but did not accompany him inside and could not identify the specific product purchased; Michael also obtained/used spice from other sources and shared product with others that evening.
- Others who shared the spice that night did not exhibit similar severe symptoms; Michael had a history of other substance use (e.g., Vicodin, Xanax, alcohol).
- Plaintiff asserted breach of express and implied warranties, negligence/gross negligence/strict liability, and MCPA claims; defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) arguing plaintiff cannot prove causation.
- Trial court denied summary disposition; Court of Appeals reversed, holding causation proof was speculative and insufficient as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff produced sufficient evidence that defendants supplied the specific product that caused Michael's injury (causation/identification) | Evidence (Alcorn) shows Michael purchased spice at defendants’ store on June 3; medical opinion ties K2 ingestion to Michael’s breakdown | Alcorn could not identify the exact product or brand sold by defendants; Michael also obtained/consumed spice from other sources and shared product, so causal link to defendants’ sale is speculative | Court: No — evidence does not permit a reasonable inference that spice from defendants caused the injury; causation is speculative and summary disposition warranted |
| Whether circumstantial evidence here suffices to meet product-liability causation standard | Circumstantial proof plus expert medical opinion (Dr. Shiener) establishes spice ingestion caused injury and therefore raises factual disputes | Circumstantial evidence must point selectively to defendant’s product; expert opinion did not tie injury to product from defendants and ignored multiple sources | Court: Expert evidence insufficient to identify defendants’ product as the more-likely cause; speculation cannot create a factual dispute |
| Whether statutory/regulatory violations (sale of spice) create a presumption of negligence or change causation analysis | Sale violated MCL 333.7402 and other statutes, creating prima facie negligence or a presumption of breach | Even if statutory breach existed, plaintiff still must prove proximate causation to defendants’ sale; statutory change in 2012 postdated the sale | Court: Statutory arguments do not overcome lack of causation; later scheduling changes irrelevant; proximate cause still required |
| Whether defendant moved to dismiss all claims, including MCPA, or abandoned any claim on appeal | Plaintiff claimed defendants abandoned challenge to MCPA because not explicitly mentioned below | Defendants’ motion sought dismissal of all claims in trial court | Court: Defendants challenged all claims; no abandonment identified |
Key Cases Cited
- Beek v. City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (court reviews summary disposition de novo)
- Rambin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 495 Mich 316 (summary disposition standard and view of evidence for C(10))
- Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich 153 (circumstantial evidence must permit reasonable inference of causation; distinguishes conjecture)
- Meemic Ins. Co. v. DTE Energy Co., 292 Mich App 278 (speculation cannot create genuine issue of material fact)
- MASB-SEG Prop./Cas. Pool, Inc. v. Metalux, 231 Mich App 393 (product-liability requires showing defendant supplied defective product and that defect caused injury)
- Kaminski v. Grand Trunk W.R. Co., 347 Mich 417 (distinguishing reasonable inference from conjecture in causation proof)
- Castro v. Goulet, 312 Mich App 1 (summary disposition standard)
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Christensen, 229 Mich App 417 (statutory violation may be prima facie evidence of breach of duty)