KAREN HOWARD V SCOTT MILES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
KAREN HOWARD,
UNPUBLISHED
October 29, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 203209
Ontonagon Circuit Court
LC No. 95-000024 NO
SCOTT MILES,
Defendant,
and
COPPER RANGE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In her first amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that she received obscene telephone calls from
defendant Scott Miles while he was employed at defendant Copper Range Inc.’s facility. Plaintiff
further alleged that Copper Range’s negligent supervision of Miles permitted the calls to continue and
that she suffered emotional distress, mental suffering and other damages as a result of Copper Range’s
negligence. The trial court subsequently granted Copper Range’s motion for summary disposition as to
plaintiff’s negligent supervision claim pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiff appeals as of right. We
affirm. 1
On appeal, plaintiff challenges the trial court’s dismissal of her negligent supervision claim.
However, we are unable to reach the merits of plaintiff’s challenge in this appeal because her brief fails
to cite any authority relative to Copper Range’s alleged liability for negligent supervision. As our
Supreme Court stated in Mudge v Macomb Co, 458 Mich 87, 104-105; 580 NW2d 845 (1998),
quoting Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959):
It is not enough for an appellant in his brief simply to announce a position or
assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for
-1
his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority
either to sustain or reject his position. The appellant himself must first adequately prime
the pump; only then does the appellate well begin to flow.
Because plaintiff has failed to support her argument by citation of legal authority, she has waived
her sole issue on appeal. In re Contempt of Barnett, 233 Mich App 188, 191; 592 NW2d 431
(1998).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
1
Plaintiff does not appeal from the May 3, 1996 order granting summary disposition of her premises
liability and respondeat superior claims.
-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.
