Court Opinion

ID: 9880989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 05:08:49.286622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:16.025964
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
              revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                      STATE OF MICHIGAN

                         COURT OF APPEALS

SANTWAN REESE,                                                 FOR PUBLICATION
                                                               September 28, 2023
           Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                              No. 362140
                                                               Wayne Circuit Court
JALEN CHRISTOPHER JAMES, HOUSEHOLD                             LC No. 20-006573-NI
OF FAITH CHURCH, HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH,
INC., and PROGRESSIVE MARATHON
INSURANCE COMPANY,

           Defendants,
and

THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH IS THE
CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE PILLAR
AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, INC., also
known as, THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH
IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE
PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH,

           Defendant-Appellant.

SANTWAN REESE,

           Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                              No. 362151
                                                               Wayne Circuit Court
JALEN CHRISTOPHER JAMES, PROGRESSIVE                           LC No. 20-006573-NI
MARATHON INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE
HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH IS THE
CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE PILLAR
AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, INC., also
known as, THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH

                                           -1-
IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE
PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH,

               Defendants,
and

HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH CHURCH and
HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH, INC.,

               Defendants-Appellants.

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and CAMERON, JJ.

SHAPIRO, P.J. (concurring).

        I concur. As the majority makes clear, plaintiff testified that it was his belief, based on his
direct observation, that defendant Jalen James was intentionally attempting to run him over. If this
was not sufficiently clear from the initial impact, plaintiff testified that, after the initial impact,
James put the van in reverse and attempted to back up to strike plaintiff a second time. By contrast,
James testified that it was not his intent to hit plaintiff.

        If this testimony was the extent of the evidence, I would conclude that there was a material
question of fact for the jury. But this was not the extent of the evidence. James had already pleaded
guilty to assault with intent to do great bodily harm, MCL 750.84(1)(a), and during his plea, while
under oath, he admitted that he intended to hit plaintiff. Given that binding admission, I agree that
there is no question of material fact and that the trial court erred by denying summary disposition
to defendant owner.

                                                               /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

                                                 -2-