RONALD BRYANT JR V C & D HUGHES INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RONALD BRYANT, JR,
UNPUBLISHED
January 19, 2006
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 256664
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 03-003816-NO
C & D HUGHES, INC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and O’Connell and Kelly, JJ.
KELLY, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ opinion. I would affirm the trial court’s order
granting summary disposition in defendants’ favor.
Defendant was hired, as a subcontractor, to perform pipe and drainage work for a
highway construction project in Jackson County. It is undisputed that defendant installed the
manhole on April 29, 2002, and that defendant owed a duty to cover the manhole before leaving
the construction site.1 Two months after the installation of the manhole, on June 24, 2002,
plaintiff was injured when he fell into the manhole while finishing cement at the construction
site. At the time of the fall, the manhole was uncovered. According to plaintiff, high grass was
growing around the manhole and, therefore, the manhole was just “part of the scenery.” The
central issue to this appeal is whether there is any evidence to create a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether defendant did not cover the manhole on April 29, 2002, before leaving the
construction site.
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Kefgen v
Davidson, 241 Mich App 611, 616; 617 NW2d 351 (2000). As our Supreme Court stated in
Quinto v Cross& Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362-363; 547 NW2d 314 (1996):
1
A temporary plate is generally placed over the top of an open and exposed manhole. The metal
plate used to cover a manhole is commonly referred to as a “road plate.” A road plate is a square
metal plate approximately three-feet by three-feet weighing sixty to eighty pounds.
-1-
In presenting a motion for summary disposition, the moving party has the initial
burden of supporting its position by affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other
documentary evidence. The burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish
that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. Where the burden of proof at trial on
a dispositive issue rests on a nonmoving party, the nonmoving party may not rely
on mere allegations or denials in pleadings, but must go beyond the pleadings to
set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. If the
opposing party fails to present documentary evidence establishing the existence of
a material factual dispute, the motion is properly granted. [Citations omitted.]
There were two hearings on defendant’s motion for summary disposition. At the first
hearing, defendant submitted an affidavit from Charlie Kunkel, defendant’s superintendent and
project manager on this construction project. In his affidavit, he attested that he was competent
to “testify with personal knowledge as to the facts” contained in his affidavit and that defendant
placed a “75-pound road plate” over the open manhole on April 29, 2002. In addition,
defendant’s attorney submitted an affidavit requesting additional time, pursuant to MCR
2.116(H), to secure the affidavit of Scott Jones. Defendant’s attorney attested that Jones was
hired by the state to inspect the work performed by defendant at the highway construction site,
that Jones prepared an inspection report for the manhole, and that Jones would testify that he
would not have prepared the report unless the manhole was covered.
In response, plaintiff asserted that the manhole “does speak for itself” because it was not
covered on the day of the accident. The trial court found that res ipsa loquitur did not apply
because defendant did not have exclusive control of the premises.2 The trial court then stated:
[T]he critical question is: at the time [defendant] did the work on April of ’02,
was there a plate covering the top of it which was in accordance with the usual
customary practice.
As of now, we do have Mr. Konkel [sic] testifying to that. And, if you do submit
an affidavit of Mr. Jones to that effect, then a summary disposition will enter on
behalf of [defendant], but I want to see that affidavit first.
Accordingly, the trial court adjourned the hearing to permit the parties to obtain an affidavit or
deposition testimony from Jones.
At his deposition, Jones testified that he inspected the work performed by defendant at
the highway construction site. As part of the inspection process, Jones was required to complete
inspector’s daily reports (“IDR”). According to Jones, the IDR indicated that defendant installed
the manhole on April 29, 2002. Jones stated that under his standard procedure, he did not fill out
an IDR unless all of the work was completed, part of which would include covering the manhole.
Specifically, Jones testified that he would not have completed the IDR if the manhole was not
covered. Thus, Jones testified that, based on this standard procedure, the manhole was covered
2
Plaintiff does not dispute the applicability of this theory on appeal.
-2-
on April 29, 2002. Under cross-examination, Jones further testified that he could not
independently recall the manhole or whether it was covered, nor could he recall if he followed
his standard procedures that day when filling out the IDR.
At the second hearing on the motion for summary disposition, the court granted
defendant’s motion stating:
There’s some obligation on part of the Plaintiff to go forward to show that the
Defendant did something wrong. We have nothing here but guess and speculation
that, because it was uncovered, that means the Defendant did something wrong, in
effect a res ipsa theory, when res ipsa does not apply in this case.
[I]n my mind, there’s just nothing to go to the jury. There’s just no genuine
material issue of fact with regards to Defendant having done something wrong.
In fact, all of the proofs are to the contrary, and so, therefore, with lack of proofs
on the part of the Plaintiff to show that the Defendant did anything wrong, the
Motion for Summary Disposition is granted.
In my opinion, the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition on this record.
Plaintiff did not submit anything to the trial court to contradict or refute the evidence presented
by defendant. Even on appeal, plaintiff continues to rely on the mere fact that the manhole was
not covered on the day of the accident to prove that defendant failed to cover the manhole on the
day it left the construction site. But, as noted by the trial court, Kunkel’s uncontroverted
affidavit states that defendant placed a road plate on top of the manhole after defendant installed
the manhole on April 29, 2002. Similarly, Jones’ deposition testimony indicates that because he
completed an IDR on April 29, 2002, defendant must have covered the manhole on that day even
though he had no independent recollection of the circumstances surrounding the completion of
the IDR. See MRE 406.
Plaintiff also relies on the fact that tall grass had grown around the manhole and argues
that the grass would not have grown there if a road plate had been placed over the manhole.
Plaintiff argues that the absence of a “square patch” of dirt surrounding the manhole is
circumstantial evidence that a road plate was not present. However, there is no testimony that
there was either an absence of a “square patch” of dirt or that the grass was even growing to the
edge of the manhole. In fact, the record is devoid of any evidence in this regard with the
exception of plaintiff’s testimony that the grass obscured the manhole and was “part of the
scenery.” There were no pictures of the manhole nor was any indication that anyone inspected
the manhole after the accident. The presence of grass around the manhole does not indicate one
way or the other that defendant failed to cover the manhole.
-3-
I agree with the trial court that plaintiff’s assertion that defendant never covered the
manhole is mere speculation unsupported by any evidence. Because plaintiff failed to present
any evidence establishing the existence of a material factual dispute in response to defendant’s
motion, the trial court properly entered the order granting summary disposition. I would affirm.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-4-
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.