Court Opinion

ID: 9655717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:20:00.399288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:21.321886
License: Public Domain

Beasley, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that under some circumstances a last clear chance jury instruction may be given together with a comparative negligence instruction.
I disagree with the restrictive interpretation the majority has put upon the evidence. This was a wrongful death case. The only witnesses testifying to having seen the collision were employees of defendant. The jury was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the objective facts of the collision and should not be limited to the version testified to by defendant’s witnesses.
There were conflicting theories of what happened based upon the evidence. Resolution of those conflicts was for the jury.1 I am not prepared to say that there is no possible basis upon which reasonable persons could find liability.2 I would affirm.

 Beasley v Grand Trunk W R Co, 90 Mich App 576, 584-585, 590: 282 NW2d 401 (1979).

 McKinch v Dixon, 391 Mich 282, 287; 215 NW2d 689 (1974); Bauman v Grand Trunk W R Co, 376 Mich 675, 687; 138 NW2d 285 (1965).