CYNTHIA WALKER V CONTINENTAL CONTRACTORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CYNTHIA WALKER, Personal Representative of
the Estate of RYAN HEATH WALKER, Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
April 21, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
CONTINENTAL CONTRACTORS and JOHN
RAYMOND SNYDER,
No. 211897
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 97-700907-NI
Defendants-Appellees,
and
ENZO EVANGELISTA, MICHAEL DEGREGORY,
and DAVID DEGREGORY,
Defendants.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Neff and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary
disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Defendants were hired by the State of Michigan to paint lane marking on highways. Decedent
was killed when the car he was driving entered a ramp and struck the rear end of defendants’ truck.
The car decedent was driving had been leased from Enterprise Car Rental, Inc. by decedent’s brother’s
girlfriend. Plaintiff filed suit alleging negligence, gross negligence and reckless and wanton conduct, and
breach of contract. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition pursuant to
MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the grounds that decedent had no permission to drive the car, that the lease
agreement for the car had expired, and that the decedent was driving a stolen car without a license.
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Harrison v
Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 605; 572 NW2d 679 (1997). Plaintiff argues that the trial
-1
court erred by granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition. We disagree and affirm. In the
trial court, plaintiff did not establish, by affidavit or otherwise, that a genuine issue of fact existed as to
whether decedent had permission to drive the car or whether the lease had expired. MCR
2.116(G)(4). On appeal, plaintiff continues to argue that defendants negligently failed to post adequate
signs and warning signals. However, the trial court did not base its ruling on this issue. Plaintiff refers to
but does not specifically address the basis on which the trial court granted defendants’ motion for
summary disposition, as required. See Joerger v Gordon Food Service, Inc, 224 Mich App 167,
175; 568 NW2d 365 (1997). Plaintiff cites no pertinent authority to support her position that the trial
court erred. “A party may not leave it to this Court to search for authority to support its position.”
McPeak v McPeak (On Remand), 233 Mich App 483, 495-496; 593 NW2d 180 (1999).
Affirmed.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-2
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.
