Court Opinion

ID: 9722851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:52:53.46341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:40.694913
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(dissenting). The Court of Appeals’ written opinion (Schedlbauer v. Chris-Craft Corp. [1967], 6 Mich App 1, 6-7) concludes as follows:
“The question is whether or not the appellants did establish, by evidence, the source of the leaking gasoline. There is no evidence that the diaphragm was defective. All the experts called by both parties listed it as one of the possibilities, however, there is no proof in the record of the diaphragm being defective.
“Mr. Justice Talbot Smith quoted ample authority for the proposition that a jury verdict must be based on more than mere conjecture, in Glinski v. Szylling (1959), 358 Mich 182, 202:
“ ‘No less explicit was the opinion of Mr. Justice Wiest in Frye v. City of Detroit, 256 Mich 466, 469, 470, in holding as follows:
“ ‘ “It was necessary for plaintiff to submit proof, from which the jury could draw the reasonable in*233ferenee that the death of plaintiff’s decedent would not have occurred but for the negligence of defendant city. The plaintiff must go beyond showing that such might have been the case.
“ ‘ “The rule, in negligence cases, is well stated in Ramberg v. Morgan, 209 Iowa 474, 486, 487 (218 NW 492):
“ ‘ “ ‘True, it was not necessary for plaintiff to prove the causal connection by direct evidence, but substantial evidence must be furnished upon which a reasonable basis for inference may be made. The proof must establish causal connection beyond the point of conjecture. It must show more than a possibility. Verdicts must rest upon reasonable certainty of proof.’ ” ’
“It is the opinion of the Court that there was not sufficient evidence upon which a jury verdict could be based. Accordingly, the lower court’s granting of judgment notwithstanding the verdict is affirmed in both cases. Costs to appellee.”
Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, I join that Court in affirming “the lower court’s granting of judgment notwithstanding the verdict” in both eases.
The judgment should be affirmed. Costs to appellee.