causal connection rule in Michigan

2022The causal connection requirement was addressed by this Court in Roberson v Occupational Health Ctrs, 220 Mich App 322, 324 ; 559 NW2d 86 (1996).

2022The causal connection requirement was addressed by this Court in Roberson v Occupational Health Ctrs, 220 Mich App 322, 324 ; 559 NW2d 86 (1996).

2013Though we are troubled by Scott’s use of a causal-connection standard this Court has never recognized— that “[a]lmost any causal connection will do,” id. at 586—it is nonetheless clearly distinguishable from this case because plaintiff admits that, absent the intervening motorcycle accident, his spinal cord injury would not have occurred as a direct result of the neurological disorder.

2013Though we are troubled by Scott’s use of a causal-connection standard this Court has never recognized — that “[a]lmost any causal connection will do,” id. at 586 — it is nonetheless clearly distinguishable from this case because plaintiff admits that, absent the intervening motorcycle accident, his spinal cord injury would not have occurred as a direct result of the neurological disorder.

1988This causal connection rule was subsequently approved in Humphries v Complete Auto Transit, Inc, 305 Mich 188, 193 ; 9 NW2d 55 (1943), and Crane v Woodbury, 41 Mich App 11, 17 ; 199 NW2d 577 (1972).

1988This causal connection rule was subsequently approved in Humphries v Complete Auto Transit, Inc, 305 Mich 188, 193 ; 9 NW2d 55 (1943), and Crane v Woodbury, 41 Mich App 11, 17 ; 199 NW2d 577 (1972).

1988This causal connection rule was subsequently approved in Humphries v Complete Auto Transit, Inc, 305 Mich 188, 193 ; 9 NW2d 55 (1943), and Crane v Woodbury, 41 Mich App 11, 17 ; 199 NW2d 577 (1972).

1988This causal connection rule was subsequently approved in Humphries v Complete Auto Transit, Inc, 305 Mich 188, 193 ; 9 NW2d 55 (1943), and Crane v Woodbury, 41 Mich App 11, 17 ; 199 NW2d 577 (1972).

1988In Crane , this Court further elaborated on the Bryant test by quoting 46 ALR2d 9, 13, 19: "In determining the admissibility of evidence concerning the manner in which a participant in an accident was driving a vehicle before he reached the scene of the accident as against the objection that the testimony is remote, the most important factor is the degree of probability that the conduct continued until the accident occurred.” (Emphasis added.) [ 41 Mich App 17 .] In Woodrow v Johns, 61 Mich App 255, 265 ; 232 NW2d 688 (1975), this Court applied the Crane test and held that evidence of the defe

1988In Crane , this Court further elaborated on the Bryant test by quoting 46 ALR2d 9, 13, 19: "In determining the admissibility of evidence concerning the manner in which a participant in an accident was driving a vehicle before he reached the scene of the accident as against the objection that the testimony is remote, the most important factor is the degree of probability that the conduct continued until the accident occurred.” (Emphasis added.) [ 41 Mich App 17 .] In Woodrow v Johns, 61 Mich App 255, 265 ; 232 NW2d 688 (1975), this Court applied the Crane test and held that evidence of the defe

1986Elrod v Union Bleachery, 204 SC 481 ( 30 SE2d 73 )." Crilly v Ballou, supra, pp 326-327 .

1986Elrod v Union Bleachery, 204 SC 481 ( 30 SE2d 73 ).” Crilly v Ballou, supra, pp 326-327 .

1986Elrod v Union Bleachery, 204 SC 481 ( 30 SE2d 73 )." Crilly v Ballou, supra, pp 326-327 .

1986Elrod v Union Bleachery, 204 SC 481 ( 30 SE2d 73 ).” Crilly v Ballou, supra, pp 326-327 .

1984In King, supra, the plaintiff was reaching to unlock his car door when he slipped on some ice and fell.

1984Block, supra, p 109 .

1981Rangas v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, 64 Mich App 1, 17 ; 235 NW2d 42 (1975), lv den 395 Mich 787 (1975), Shinabarger v Citizens Mutual Ins Co, 90 Mich App 307 ; 282 NW2d 301 (1979) , Dowdy, supra. The accident which caused Ms. Block’s injury was a slip and fall on the ice without causal connection with the ownership, maintenance, and use of the van.

1981Rangas v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, 64 Mich App 1, 17 ; 235 NW2d 42 (1975), lv den 395 Mich 787 (1975), Shinabarger v Citizens Mutual Ins Co, 90 Mich App 307 ; 282 NW2d 301 (1979) , Dowdy, supra. The accident which caused Ms. Block’s injury was a slip and fall on the ice without causal connection with the ownership, maintenance, and use of the van.

1981Rangas v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, 64 Mich App 1, 17 ; 235 NW2d 42 (1975), lv den 395 Mich 787 (1975), Shinabarger v Citizens Mutual Ins Co, 90 Mich App 307 ; 282 NW2d 301 (1979) , Dowdy, supra. The accident which caused Ms. Block’s injury was a slip and fall on the ice without causal connection with the ownership, maintenance, and use of the van.

1981Rangas v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, 64 Mich App 1, 17 ; 235 NW2d 42 (1975), lv den 395 Mich 787 (1975), Shinabarger v Citizens Mutual Ins Co, 90 Mich App 307 ; 282 NW2d 301 (1979) , Dowdy, supra. The accident which caused Ms. Block’s injury was a slip and fall on the ice without causal connection with the ownership, maintenance, and use of the van.

1981Rangas v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, 64 Mich App 1, 17 ; 235 NW2d 42 (1975), lv den 395 Mich 787 (1975), Shinabarger v Citizens Mutual Ins Co, 90 Mich App 307 ; 282 NW2d 301 (1979) , Dowdy, supra. The accident which caused Ms. Block’s injury was a slip and fall on the ice without causal connection with the ownership, maintenance, and use of the van.