Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #345507; Unpublished
Judges Swartzle, Gleicher, and Kelly; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s summary disposition order in favor of the plaintiff, Jerry Paul, who was seeking uninsured motorist benefits under his own no-fault insurance policy with the defendant, Farm Bureau Insurance Company of Michigan. Farm Bureau sought to invoke the sudden emergency doctrine—claiming that the hit-and-run driver that struck Paul while Paul was outside of his vehicle was blinded momentarily by “white-out” snowy weather conditions—to avoid liability to Paul under the uninsured motorist provision of his policy. The only evidence presented as to the weather at the time of the collision was an affidavit executed by Paul’s wife, in which she testified that visibility had improved immediately prior to Paul’s departure from the vehicle and subsequent collision. The Court of Appeals held that Paul’s wife’s affidavit, although uncontroverted, necessarily created a jury question because “the resolution of [the] case rest[ed] solely on the credibility of testimony offered by a witness,” and that summary disposition was therefore improper.
Jerry Paul and his wife, Joann, were driving through Indiana on their way to Florida when they became involved in a multi-car pileup caused by “white-out” snow conditions. The Pauls testified that they remained in their vehicle after the pile-up until visibility improved, at which point Jerry Paul exited the vehicle while his wife remained inside. While outside the vehicle, another vehicle struck the Pauls vehicle, which in turn struck and injured Jerry. Farm Bureau paid PIP benefits to Jerry for his injuries but denied his claim for uninsured-motorist benefits under his policy’s hit-and-run provision. Jerry sued Farm Bureau, seeking uninsured-motorist benefits, and after several motions for summary disposition and appeals on unrelated issues, Farm Bureau moved for summary disposition again, arguing that Paul’s claim for uninsured-motorist benefits was barred by the sudden emergency doctrine—considering the effects of the white-out on the hit-and-run driver’s visibility. In response, Joann Paul executed an affidavit testifying that the conditions had cleared by the time Jerry exited the vehicle and at the moment of impact, and since her testimony was uncontroverted by any other evidence, the trial court granted summary disposition in Jerry Paul’s favor instead.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order in favor of Jerry Paul, holding that the trial court erred in considering Joann Paul’s account of the weather conditions at the time of the collision as conclusive on the issue of the sudden-emergency doctrine. The Court noted that the “‘jury is free to credit or discredit any testimony,’” and that “even ‘[u]ncontradicted testimony may be disentitled to conclusiveness because, from lapse of time or other circumstances, it may be inferred that the memory of the witness [is] imperfect as to the facts to which [s]he testified.” Moreover:
When the resolution of a case rests solely on the credibility of testimony offered by a witness, summary disposition is inappropriate because a jury question necessarily exists. Ultimately, it is the jury’s job—not the job of the trial court or of this Court—to assess whether the account of the weather and visibility conditions given by plaintiff’s wife is true.
Even accepting the statements made by plaintiff’s wife in the affidavit as true, opposing inferences could still be drawn regarding the weather and visibility conditions at the time of the accident, given the testimony of other witnesses that the conditions were rapidly changing and the events involved in the multi-vehicle accident happened quickly. Because there is other evidence in the record from which opposing inferences could be drawn, a question of fact necessarily exists, and the trial court erroneously granted summary disposition in favor of plaintiff.
