Court Opinion

ID: 9910206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 05:04:38.548254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:28.553189
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

MOHAMMED HAQUE,                                                     UNPUBLISHED
                                                                    December 14, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellant,

v                                                                   No. 364936
                                                                    Oakland Circuit Court
TERESA MALARZ SNYDER,                                               LC No. 2021-188925-NI

               Defendant,
and

WILLIAM WHITTY WERKMAN,

               Defendant-Appellee.

Before: LETICA, P.J., and O’BRIEN and CAMERON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        In this third-party automobile negligence action, plaintiff appeals as of right the order
granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, William Whitty Werkman (“Werkman”),
under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact). Plaintiff also challenges the order
denying his motion for reconsideration. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.

                 I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This case involves an automobile accident in Troy, Michigan, at the intersection of Square
Lake Road and John R. Road. Plaintiff was stopped at the intersection, intending to make a right
turn to travel northbound on John R. Road. Werkman entered the intersection, planning to make
a left turn to travel eastbound on Square Lake Road. At the same time, defendant, Teresa Malarz
Snyder (“Snyder”), entered the intersection traveling northbound. Werkman and Snyder’s vehicles
collided. The impact of the crash caused Snyder’s vehicle to collide with plaintiff’s vehicle.
Werkman and Snyder both claimed they entered the intersection on a green traffic signal. Plaintiff
was unable to see the color of the traffic signal.

                                               -1-
        Werkman moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing dismissal
was proper because plaintiff could not present evidence of his negligence. In support, Werkman
cited plaintiff’s deposition testimony, where he testified he could not see the traffic light facing
John R. Road and did not know if Snyder or Werkman had a green light. Plaintiff opposed the
motion, arguing a genuine issue of material fact existed. The trial court granted summary
disposition. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, but the court denied the motion. This appeal
followed.

                                 II. SUMMARY DISPOSITION

        Plaintiff argues the trial court erred when it granted Werkman’s motion for summary
disposition. We agree.

                    A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

        Decisions on motions for summary disposition are reviewed de novo. Bailey v Antrim Co,
341 Mich App 411, 421; 990 NW2d 372 (2022). “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) . . . tests
the factual sufficiency of a claim.” El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152, 160; 934
NW2d 665 (2019) (emphasis omitted).

       In evaluating a motion for summary disposition brought under this subsection, a
       trial court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other
       evidence submitted by the parties . . . in the light most favorable to the party
       opposing the motion. Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine
       issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
       matter of law. [Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999)
       (citation omitted).]

        Under the burden-shifting framework of MCR 2.116(C)(10), “the moving party has the
initial burden of supporting its position by affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other
documentary evidence.” Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996).
If the movant meets their burden,

       The burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of
       disputed fact exists. Where the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue rests
       on a nonmoving party, the nonmoving party may not rely on mere allegations or
       denials in pleadings, but must go beyond the pleadings to set forth specific facts
       showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. If the opposing party fails to
       present documentary evidence establishing the existence of a material factual
       dispute, the motion is properly granted. [Id. at 362-363 (citations omitted).]

                                   B. LAW AND ANALYSIS

        Plaintiff filed the complaint alleging negligence against Snyder and Werkman. The
“traditional elements of a negligence action” are: “(1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, and
(4) damages. . . .” Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45, 63; 860 NW2d 67 (2014) (quotation
marks and citation omitted). Werkman moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff was

                                                -2-
unable to prove that Werkman negligently caused the accident. In support of this contention,
Werkman noted that there was no evidence demonstrating his negligence.1

       Plaintiff responded, citing MCL 257.650(1), the statute governing left turns. It states:

       The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield
       the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is
       within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate
       hazard; but the driver, having so yielded and having given a signal when and as
       required by this chapter, may make the left turn and the drivers of all other vehicles
       approaching the intersection from the opposite direction shall yield the right of way
       to the vehicle making the left turn. At an intersection at which a traffic signal is
       located, a driver intending to make a left turn shall permit vehicles bound straight
       through in the opposite direction which are waiting a go signal to pass through the
       intersection before making the turn.

According to plaintiff, there was a genuine question of fact whether Werkman lawfully turned left
at the intersection. In support of this contention, plaintiff cited his own testimony in which he
described his interaction with Werkman after the accident. Plaintiff explained: “[Werkman] came
to me and then he asked me, ‘Was it not my signal,’ because [Werkman] was not sure.” Viewing
this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff shows it is, at best, unclear whether Werkman
was permitted to travel left through the intersection.

        In granting summary disposition, the trial court opined that, other than the existence of an
accident, there was no evidence demonstrating any party’s negligence. It is true that “[t]he mere
occurrence of an accident does not raise a presumption of negligence . . . .” Postal Tel-Cable Co
v Battle Creek Gas Co, 290 Mich 481, 486; 287 NW 886 (1939) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). But, plaintiff’s evidence went beyond reciting the mere occurrence of an accident.
Although plaintiff’s evidence was not definitive proof Werkman negligently caused the accident,
it was sufficient to create a question of fact. Accordingly, the jury should be given the opportunity
to hear Werkman’s testimony and determine whether his actions amounted to negligence. See
Price v Austin, 509 Mich 938, 938; 972 NW2d 246 (2022) (citing to the premise when the
credibility of a witness or deponent is crucial to assessing whether there exists a question of fact,
summary judgment should not be granted). Because there remained a genuine question of fact as

1
  Plaintiff argues on appeal that Werkman failed to meet his burden of production in support of his
motion for summary disposition. This argument is unpreserved because it was not raised in the
trial court. Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC, ___ Mich App ___, ___;
___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359090); slip op at 2-3 (explaining that Michigan follows the
“raise or waive” rule with respect to the preservation of issues). Plaintiff offers no explanation
why this Court should consider this unpreserved argument and we decline to consider it.

                                                 -3-
to Werkman’s negligence, the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition. Given this
conclusion, we need not consider plaintiff’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

       Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                            /s/ Anica Letica
                                                            /s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
                                                            /s/ Thomas C. Cameron

                                               -4-