Court Opinion

ID: 9705175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:58:53.063149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:08.531045
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, J.
(dissenting). The incident which is the subject of this suit is the same as that involved in Schram v LaRowe, 74 Mich App 555; 254 NW2d 333 (1977). In the LaRowe case we reversed a summary judgment granted upon the same grounds as the judgment the majority affirms here. Although the metal upon which plaintiff slipped could not have come from both sheds, and may not have come from either, summary judgment should not be entered where this fact is disputed.
Defendants offered affidavits claiming they had recovered all of the pieces to their shed which was admittedly destroyed in a windstorm. However, it *254does not appear that defendants attempted to reassemble the shed. Since the shed was not reassembled, the trial court necessarily indulged in fact-finding in concluding that the Chambers had recovered all pieces of their shed. I vote to follow my opinion in Schram v LaRowe, supra, and reverse.