Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

BRIAN BENJAMIN STACEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v COLONIAL ACRES ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. and NEWBURY MANAGEMENT CO., Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED December 15, 2011

No. 300955 Kalamazoo Circuit Court LC No. 2009-000382-NO

Before: WILDER, P.J., and TALBOT and SERVITTO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's grant of summary disposition in defendants' favor in this negligence action. Because defendants owed no duty to plaintiff, we affirm. Plaintiff, a 16-year-old resident of manufactured home community owned and operated by defendants, visited another residence in the community, owned by Damon and Michelle Young, on August 25, 2006. Plaintiff had been to this residence numerous times without incident, as the Young's teenage son, Houston Payne, was his best friend. On that particular date, however, the Young's pit bull dog suddenly and without provocation bit plaintiff in the face, causing him serious injuries that required stitches and left him scarred. Plaintiff initiated the instant action against defendants asserting that they were negligent in, primarily, failing to warn plaintiff of a prohibited, dangerous dog, and protect him from the same. Defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) contending that they owed no duty to plaintiff to protect him from being bitten by a dog in a private residence when they neither owned or possessed the dog, nor knew of its presence or violent propensities. Defendants also asserted that no action on their part was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. The trial court found that defendants owed no duty to plaintiff and entered an order granting summary disposition in defendants' favor. This appeal followed. We review a grant of summary disposition de novo. Besic v Citizens Ins Co of the Midwest, 290 Mich App 19, 23; 800 NW2d 93 (2010). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint. Robinson v Ford Motor Co, 277 Mich App 146, 150; 744 NW2d 363 (2007). When reviewing a motion under subrule (C)(10), this Court considers the pleadings, admissions, affidavits, and other relevant record evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether any genuine -1-

issue of material fact exists warranting a trial. Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618, 621; 689 NW2d 506 (2004). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is properly granted where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Campbell v Human Servs Dep't, 286 Mich App 230, 235; 780 NW2d 586 (2009). On appeal, plaintiff contends that genuine issues of fact exist concerning whether defendants knew of the dog's presence in the Youngs' manufactured home, and whether defendants knew that the dog had dangerous propensities such that defendants owed plaintiff a duty to warn of and to protect him from the dog. While the trial court found that defendants owed no duty to plaintiff concerning the dog that bit him, plaintiff asserts that this conclusion was reached through the court's misapplication of pertinent case law to the facts of this case. Thus, plaintiff avers the trial court erred in its ultimate conclusion. We disagree. In order to make out a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) duty, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages. Brown v Brown, 478 Mich 545, 552; 739 NW2d 313 (2007). The existence of a legal duty is a question of law. Valcaniant v Detroit Edison Co, 470 Mich 82, 86; 679 NW2d 689 (2004). "Duty is essentially a question of whether the relationship between the actor and the injured person gives rise to any legal obligation on the actor's part for the benefit of the injured person." Brown, 478 Mich at 552, quoting Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich 425, 438

Download BRIAN BENJAMIN STACEY V COLONIAL ACRES ASSOCIATES LLC.pdf

Michigan Law