Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

Order 

January 17, 2020

159413

LOREN KROLL, by RONALD KROLL and

SUSAN KROLL, Legal Guardians,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 159413

COA: 341895 

Muskegon CC: 16-006224-NI

DELORES DEMORROW and MONTAGUE

AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. 

The issue before us is whether the plaintiffs, Loren Kroll’s legal guardians, 

presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Delores DeMorrow’s alleged 

failure to activate the bus’s caution lights was a cause in fact of Loren’s injuries. When 

reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the evidence 

must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Odom v Wayne Co, 

482 Mich 459, 466-467 (2008). Summary disposition is appropriate only if there is no 

genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is therefore entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 467. Factual causation requires showing that “but 

for” the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred. Ray v 

Swager, 501 Mich 52, 63 (2017). 

Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there was sufficient evidence 

to bar summary disposition on the factual-cause element of the plaintiffs’ negligence 

claim. The driver of the truck that struck Loren testified that it was his habit to slow to a 

stop when he saw a bus’s caution lights activated. He further testified that had the bus’s 

caution lights been on in this case, he would have stopped. The Court of Appeals erred 

when it found that this testimony was mere speculation and that it was not proven that 

DeMorrow’s alleged failure to activate the caution lights was a factual cause of Loren’s 

injuries. The truck driver’s testimony created a genuine issue of material fact as to 

whether the accident would have occurred but for DeMorrow’s failure to turn on the 

lights because the truck driver would have slowed to a stop before he hit Loren. 
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 17, 2020

b0114

2

Clerk

Relying at least in part on its erroneous factual-cause analysis, the panel then 

concluded that “DeMorrow’s failure to activate the caution lights cannot be the proximate 

cause of the accident.” Kroll v DeMorrow, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court 

of Appeals, issued February 26, 2019 (Docket No. 341895), p 3. Therefore, pursuant to 

MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the 

Court of Appeals as to cause-in-fact, VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals as 

to proximate cause, and REMAND this case to that court for further proceedings not 

inconsistent with this order.