DIANE RAMSEY V JAMES WALTER SPITZNER JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DIANE RAMSEY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 17, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
JAMES WALTER SPITZNER, JR., H.J. DEATON
& SON, INC., and ALLEGAN COUNTY BOARD
OF ROAD COMMISSIONERS,
No. 210077
Allegan Circuit Court
LC No. 96-019729-NI
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Fitzgerald, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff sued defendants, alleging that their negligence caused an auto accident in which she was
injured. Defendants Spitzner and H.J. Deaton & Son, Inc., and defendant Allegan County Board of
Road Commissioners (hereinafter Road Commissioners) separately moved for summary disposition of
plaintiff’s claims. The trial court granted both motions, and plaintiff appeals as of right from both orders.
We affirm.
Plaintiff was seriously injured when her vehicle collided with a gravel truck driven by defendant
Spitzer. The accident occurred at the “T” intersection formed where the north and south running 21st
Street intersects the east and west running Jefferson Road. The flow of traffic through the intersection is
controlled by traffic signs. While westbound traffic on Jefferson is not required to stop, eastbound
traffic is required to stop at the intersection. Just below the stop sign that regulates the eastbound
Jefferson traffic is a yellow rectangular sign which reads, “Cross Traffic Does Not Stop.”
At the time of the accident, plaintiff was traveling eastbound and defendant Spitzner was
traveling westbound on Jefferson Road. As defendant Spitzer was turning left onto southbound 21st
Street, he collided with plaintiff who was attempting to pass through the intersection at the same time.
Defendant Spitzner testified that he was decelerating as he approached the intersection, preparing to
make a left turn. Defendant Spitzner also testified that he saw plaintiff’s car slow down as it
approached the intersection, but he did not see it stop. Spitzner’s son, a front-seat passenger in the
gravel truck, testified that plaintiff’s car failed to stop before entering the intersection. Plaintiff’s
-1
granddaughter, a front-seat passenger in plaintiff’s vehicle, testified that plaintiff may have stopped at the
stop sign, or she may have performed a “rolling stop.” Plaintiff retained no memory of the facts
surrounding the accident.
Whether plaintiff came to a full stop or merely slowed, she did enter the intersection in the path
of the oncoming gravel truck. Plaintiff’s granddaughter testified that the gravel truck was in clear view,
with its left turn signal activated, when plaintiff entered the intersection. The investigating police officer
testified that the gravel truck was on the proper side of the road, in its proper lane of travel. He
concluded that plaintiff was at fault in causing the accident, and plaintiff was issued a citation for failing to
yield the right of way.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to the defendants
because there remained genuine issues of material fact regarding the individual defendants’ negligence or
comparative negligence. We disagree. “This Court reviews decisions on motions for summary
disposition de novo.” Auto Club Ins Ass’n v Sarate, 236 Mich App 432, 434; 600 NW2d 695
(1999).
A motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual basis underlying a plaintiff’s
claim. MCR 2.116(C)(10) permits summary disposition when, except for the amount
of damages, there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact and the moving party
is entitled to damages as a matter of law. A court reviewing such a motion must
consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and any other evidence in
favor of the opposing party and grant the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the
opposing party. [Stehlik v Johnson (On Rehearing), 206 Mich App 83, 85; 520
NW2d 633 (1994).]
Plaintiff first argues that she presented material questions of fact with regard to whether
defendant Spitzner breached his duty to exercise reasonable care when turning left from Jefferson onto
21st Street. We disagree. After reviewing the evidence in the appropriate light, we conclude that
plaintiff failed to establish that a genuine issue of disputed facts existed with regard to defendant
Spritzer’s actions. As the favored driver, defendant Spitzer had the right to assume that plaintiff, the
disfavored driver, would yield as required by the traffic signs. Further, the evidence does not support
the conclusion that defendant Spitzer failed to maintain a proper lookout, or in any other way failed to
exercise reasonable care.
We also reject plaintiff’s assertion that genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to
causation. Although a causation theory must have some basis in established fact,
a basis in only slight evidence is not enough. Nor is it sufficient to submit a causation
theory that, while factually supported, is, at best, just as possible as another theory.
Rather, the plaintiff must present substantial evidence from which a jury may conclude
that more likely than not, but for the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff’s injuries would
not have occurred. [Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 164-165; 516 NW2d
475 (1994).]
-2
We conclude that plaintiff failed to satisfy this burden. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did
not err in granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) to defendants Spitzer and H.J.
Deaton & Son.
Finally, we conclude that the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant Road
Commission was also proper. Plaintiff argues that the intersection was defective in several ways. First,
plaintiff argued that the vegetation adjacent to the intersection’s southwest corner blocked her view of
21st Street, and she was forced to pull past the stop sign in order to look for oncoming traffic. Even if
this were true, plaintiff conceded that the gravel truck did not collide with her because she pulled ahead
of the stop sign to look for traffic approaching on 21st Street. Further, while the vegetation may have
blocked plaintiff’s view of northbound traffic on 21st Street, there is no evidence that it interfered with
her view of oncoming traffic on westbound Jefferson.
Plaintiff also argues that design defects, inadequate signs and lack of traffic control lights made
the intersection so confusing that she did not know the oncoming gravel truck had the right-of-way. Not
only are these conclusions unsupported by the evidence, but we note that plaintiff admitted below she
was aware from personal experience that traffic traveling in that direction was not required to stop at the
intersection.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.