Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

June 9, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 128427 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. THOMAS MATZINGER, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 128427 COA: 249612 Antrim CC: 02-007867-NI THREE R’S FOREST PRODUCTS, CLAY PHILLIP SPINDLER, THOMAS KASZUBOWSKI and ZAREMBA EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., dissents and states as follows:

The issue presented is whet her a question of material fa ct exists, making summary disposition improper. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ truc ks blocked both shoulders and the travel lanes of M-66 at the foot of a hill in early morning da rkness of December 19, 2001.

Some time before, Clay Phillip Spindler an d Thomas Kaszubowski had driven their semitrailers to the area and parked on the northbound shoulder of M-66, engaging their four-way flashers. At approximately 6:30 a.m, Spindl er put his truck in motion and began slowly turning left across M-66 while Kasz ubowski remained on the shoulder. Both Spindler and Kaszubowski testified that they saw no oncoming traffic when Spindler started his turn.

Simultaneously, plaintiff, driving his vehicle north on M-66 , reached the crest of the hill and was first able to see Spindler’s truck, 708 to 72 2 feet away. M-66 is a “no pass zone” in the area because drivers cannot see over the hill until reaching its crest._______________________________________ __ 2

Plaintiff testified that he “almost imme diately” noticed the blocked roadway and slammed on his brakes, but co uld not stop in time to avoi d colliding with Spindler’s truck. While trapped in his vehicle, plainti ff thought that he heard someone yell, “I knew we should have put somebody at the top of that hill. I knew something was going to happen.”

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Spindler and Kaszubowski acted negligently in blocking the roadway. The trial court g ranted summary disposition to defendants because plaintiff di d not present expert testim ony regarding the appropriate standard of care. The Court of Appeals held that expert te stimony was not required, but nonetheless affirmed, finding no question of material fact. I agree with the Court of Appeals that expert testimony is not required in this case, but I disagree that no question of material fact exists.

It is well settled that, in reviewing a d ecision on a motion for summary disposition, we must consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. DeBrow v Century 21 Great Lakes, Inc ( After Remand ), 463 Mich 534, 538-539 (2001). Here, although it is uncontested th at defendants complied with all appropriate regulations, defendants provide no authority showing that thei r actions were reasonable. Reliance on industry standards does not fo reclose evaluation of whether reliance was reasonable under specific circu mstances. See, e.g., The T J Hooper, 60 F2d 737 (CA 2, 1932).

The accident in this case happened in the winter when it wa s dark. Defendants blocked both shoulders and the roadway at the foot of hill in a location that may have been visible to a pproaching traffic from only a short distance. In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to pl aintiff, I am left with a firm conviction that summary disposition was inappropriate. Whether d efendants’ actions were reasonable should be left for a jury to decide.

C AVANAGH , J., joins the statement of K ELLY , J.

s0606 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 9, 2006

Clerk