Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


MARY DELANEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED March 16, 1999

No. 202391 Court of Claims LC No. 95-015982 CM

Before: Griffin, P.J., and McDonald and White, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10). We reverse and remand. While attending a private wedding reception held in the Lincoln Room of defendant's Kellogg Center, plaintiff fell from a platform on which the head table sat sixteen inches above the floor. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging negligence in failing to provide adequate railings for the platform, improper assembly, and inadequate illumination. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10). In reviewing a trial court's grant of summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), this Court must review the complaint to determine whether plaintiff has pleaded facts justifying application of an exception to governmental immunity. Johnson v Detroit , 457 Mich 695, 700-701; 579 NW2d 895 (1998). The contents of the complaint are accepted as true unless specifically contradicted by affidavits or other documentation submitted by the moving party. Sewell v Southfield Public Schools, 456 Mich 670, 674; 576 NW2d 153 (1998). Because summary disposition was also granted pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), we must also include consideration of the documentary evidence submitted by the parties. Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich 429; 526 NW2d 879 (1994). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests whether factual support exists for a claim. Panich v Iron Wood Products Corp, 179 Mich App 136, 139; 445 NW2d 795 (1989). In deciding such a motion, the trial court must consider the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other admissible documentary evidence, MCR -1

2.115(G)(5), and give the nonmoving party the benefit of every reasonable doubt. Porter v Royal Oak , 214 Mich App 478, 484; 542 NW2d 905 (1995). The court's task is to review the record evidence, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists to warrant a trial. Id. The grant of summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) is reviewed de novo. McGuirk Sand & Gravel, Inc v Meridian Mut Ins Co, 220 Mich App 347, 352; 559 NW2d 93 (1996). Pursuant to Const 1963, art 8,

Download MARY DELANEY V MICHIGAN STATE UNIV.pdf

Michigan Law