In Fuhr v Trinity Health Corporation, __ Mich __
(#147158, 10/2/2013) the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the
Court of Appeals, for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting
opinion, and reinstated the March 30, 2012 order of the Kent Circuit Court
granting summary disposition to the defendants.
The Court of Appeals dissent had opined that the
plaintiff’s self-serving deposition testimony was blatantly contradicted
by the record such that no reasonable jury could believe it. In Scott
v Harris, 550 US 372, 380; 127 S Ct 1769; 167 L Ed 2d 686 (2007), the
United States Supreme Court, considering summary disposition under FR Civ P
56(c), which is parallel to MCR 2.116(C)(10), held that “[w]hen opposing
parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by
the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not
adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary
disposition.” Under those circumstances, a “genuine” issue of material fact
does not exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment