Although this Court is not bound by a federal court decision construing Michigan law, it may follow the decision if the reasoning is persuasive. We are persuaded that the decision in Laney is correct. See Laney , supra . Under Michigan law, a defendant may introduce evidence that the plaintiff's injury is attributable to another's negligence, even if the alleged negligent actor is not a party to the action. Thus, defendant's attempt to attribute the decedent's illness to other manufacturers' asbestos products was a legitimate effort to rebut plaintiff's claim.
Proximate cause is usually a factual issue for the jury to determine.
When multiple factors contribute to produce the plaintiff's injury, one actor's negligence will be considered a proximate cause of the harm if it was a substantial factor in producing the injury. Brisboy , supra . Thus, in order to determine whether a particular factor was a substantial factor in causing a plaintiff's injury, a jury should be permitted to weigh evidence of other contributing factors. See Brisboy , supra at 550. Plaintiff argues that allowing defendant to introduce evidence of the decedent's exposures to other asbestos products would have been more prejudicial than probative and would only have served to confuse the jury.