 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Leksche v. Perkowski8/2/2002
75 (1994). "As a theory of causation, a conjecture is simply an explanation consistent with known facts or conditions, but not deducible from them as a reasonable inference. There may be 2 or more plausible explanations as to how an event happened or what produced it; yet, if the evidence is without selective application to any 1 of them, they remain conjectures only...." Id. at 164, quoting Kaminski v Grand Trunk W R Co, 347 Mich 417, 422: 79 NW2d 899 (1956). Thus, "a mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant." Id. at 165, quoting Mulholland v DEC Int'l Corp, 432 Mich 395, 416 n 18; 443 NW2d 340 (1989).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that the circumstantial evidence presented here establishes no more than the mere possibility that the smoke detector did not operate when the fire initiated. As such, there is insufficient circumstantial evidence of causation to create a question of fact as to whether defendants negligently maintained and inspected the smoke detector. Because there was no evidence establishing how long the fire had been burning before the witnesses first noticed the smoke, it can only be speculated as to whether the smoke detector had already been destroyed before the witnesses were close enough to the apartment to hear an alarm of the volume described by plaintiff, or whether the smoke detector was never operable during the fire. Either explanation being plausible, the evidence does not permit a reasonable inference that supports the plaintiff's assertions.
In addition, the Canton Township Fire Department Report states that the smoke detector performance was "not a factor." Contrary to plaintiff's contention, this report rules out the performance of the smoke detector as a cause of the fire and adds nothing to the determination whether the detector was operating at the time the fire initiated. In short, plaintiff has failed to produce "evidence which affords the reasonable conclusion that it was more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a cause in fact of the result." Skinner, supra at 165, quoting Mulholland, supra (Emphasis added). As such, summary disposition in favor of defendants was appropriately granted.
In light of our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of causation to withstand summary disposition, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the trial court correctly determined that summary disposition in favor of defendants was appropriate because defendants were in compliance with the applicable Canton Township zoning ordinances.
Affirmed.
Hilda R. Gage
Mark J. Cavanagh
Kurtis T. Wilder
|