 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hichey v. Adler's Foodtown3/27/2003
ughes v PMG Building, Inc, 227 Mich App 1, 11; 574 NW2d 691 (1997). Moreover, we reject plaintiff's argument on appeal that the evidence demonstrated that the accumulation of water was obscured by a pole and by tables. Indeed, no evidence suggested that the pole obscured the water, and the testimony about the tables referred to the warning cone and a bucket being obscured. No one testified that the tables obscured the water itself. Finally, we reject plaintiff's contention that even if the water had been open and obvious, it posed an unreasonable risk of harm. Indeed, we simply cannot conclude that walking through an accumulation of water posed an especially high likelihood of severe harm, see Lugo, supra at 519. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting Adler's motion.
Plaintiff additionally argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant her motion for reconsideration. She reiterates that the trial court decided an additional case on the same day as it decided her case but reached a different conclusion on "almost identical" facts. Plaintiff contends that it was inequitable for the other case to be resolved differently than her case. We reject plaintiff's argument. First, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, "by reasonable implication," merely reiterated the same issues already ruled on by the court. MCR 2.119(F)(3). Second, plaintiff cites no authority for the conclusion that cases involving similar facts decided on the same day must be resolved in an identical fashion. See, generally, Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243; 564 NW2d 49 (1998).
Affirmed.
Donald S. Owens
Michael J. Talbot
Patrick M. Meter
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|