White v. Taylor Distributing Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that in the context of reviewing a motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), this Court will not weigh credibility of witnesses or make factual determinations, which are reserved to the trier of fact
• noting that granting “a motion for summary disposition is suspect and improper where the credibility of a witness or deponent is crucial.”
• observing that the record evidence confirmed that the defendant “may have known or should have known that he was not feeling well when he continued driving . . . .” and therefore factual issues existed with regard to whether his emergency was “totally unexpected.”
• “The questions regarding whether defendant experienced a sudden emergency and whether defendant was negligent in driving under the facts presented in this case are proper questions for the jury.”
• “But, under the legal and factual circumstances, ‘[w]e do not ignore the inconsistencies in defendant’s statements…,’” citing Bridwell v Segel, 362 Mich 102, 106; 106 NW2d 386 (1960), as the issues presented were proper questions for the jury, not for summary disposition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).