Word Document

motion for summary disposition

You must be logged in to download this document
Description

sample motion for summary judgment (or "disposition" as referred to in Michigan) by moving party (usually the defendant) which more or less asks the court to declare the movers the winners.

Reviews
Shared by: robert myers
Stats
views:
751
downloads:
18
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
3/4/2008
language:
English
pages:
0
1 STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE EATON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Sandra Cowling, as next friend of MOTION FOR Timothy Cowling, a minor, and SUMMARY Sandra Cowling, DISPOSITION Plaintiffs, BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION v. PROPOSED ORDER PROOF OF SERVICE International Department Stores, Inc., File No: 03-1234-NI a Michigan Corporation, and Sam Security, jointly and severally, Hon. Ima Judge Defendants. ___________________________________________________________________________/Evelyn C. Tombers (P44444) Andrew Quinn (P22222) Tombers and Associates, P.C. Quinn and Quinn, P.C. Attorneys for the Plaintiff Attorneys for the Defendants 300 S. Capitol Ave. 217 S. Capitol Ave. Lansing, MI 48933 Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 371-5140 517-555-1212 __________________________________________________________________________/MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION1 The Defendants, International Department Stores, Inc., and Sam Security through their attorneys, Quinn & Quinn, P.C., move for summary disposition of Count II of Plaintiffs’ Complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and MCR 2.116(C)(10). In support of their motion, the defendants state: 1. Plaintiffs claim that Timothy Cowling was injured when he was bumped off of the curb in front of the International Department Store and into 1 This motion and the brief in support of it were originally prepared by Giuseppina M. Fricano for Profs. Sundstrum and Schlossberg’s Michaelmas 1999 Law Practice class. It has been edited. 2 the path of an oncoming car. (See Complaint at ¶¶ 25, 27, 35, attached as Exhibit A.) 2. Plaintiffs claim that International Department Store and Sam Security owed Cowling, who they claim was a business invitee, a duty to “take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm to Timothy Cowling, including warning him of and protecting him from the dangers that the store or its employees knew about, should have known about, or created.” (Complaint at ¶ 32.) 3. Any duty to a business invitee ends when the person is no longer on an invitor’s premises. Locklear v Stinson, 161 Mich App 713, 717-718; 411 NW2d 834 (1987) 4. Plaintiff, Timothy Cowling, was no longer inside the store when his injury occurred. (Deposition of Timothy Cowling at p 10:10-16, 22-25, attached as Exhibit B.) 5. International Department Store’s duty to Timothy Cowling ended when Timothy Cowling left the store. 6. Any duty to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm likewise ends when the person injured is no longer on property a defendant owns or controls. Swartz v Huffmaster Alarm Systems, Inc., 145 Mich App 431, 436; 377 NW2d 393 (1985). 7. As noted, Timothy Cowling was not inside the International Department Store when the incident occurred. (Cowling Dep. at p 10:10-16, 22-25.) 8. An invitor does not owe its invitees a duty to protect them from criminal activity of others. MacDonald v PKT Inc., 464 Mich. 322, 335; 628 NW2d 33 (2001). 9. The gang youths who were outside the store with Timothy Cowling were “shoving each other, yelling at each other . . . call[ing] each other nasty names.” (Cowling Dep at 12:23-25.) In short, the gang youths were creating a disturbance; they were being disorderly persons. See MCL 750.167 (disorderly person defined); MCL 750.168 (penalty for violation of disorderly person statute). 10. While they were being disorderly, one of the gang youths pushed Timothy Cowling off of the sidewalk. (Cowling Dep at 13:1-3.) 3 11. Neither International Department Stores Inc., nor Sam Security owed or breached a duty Timothy Cowling to protect him from the criminal acts of the Young Hoods gang members. 12. Because the Plaintiffs cannot dispute these facts, and because as a matter of law International Department Stores, Inc., and Sam Security neither owed nor breached any duties to Timothy Cowling, summary disposition of Count II of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is appropriate, and it should be granted. For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in the brief in support of this motion, the Defendants respectfully ask this Court to grant their motion for summary disposition of Count II of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Respectfully submitted: _________________________________ Andrew Quinn (P22222) Quinn and Associates, P.C. 217 S. Capitol Ave. Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 555-1212 Dated: June 23, 2002
Shared by: robert myers
About
Grew up in mainland US (mostly coastal), since Dad was USN. Dad met mom when stationed in Guam & went back to states. Mom born on Rota, Northern Mariana Islands (now a US Territory). Picked to make my home on islands because of be (More...)
Other docs by robert myers
response to motion for summary disposition
Views: 706  |  Downloads: 23
litigation chart or table
Views: 452  |  Downloads: 28
investigation plan
Views: 282  |  Downloads: 1
client intake form
Views: 332  |  Downloads: 2
alternative dispute resolutoin letter to client
Views: 271  |  Downloads: 5
hourly agreement
Views: 306  |  Downloads: 10
Related docs
motion for summary disposition
Views: 751  |  Downloads: 18
response to motion for summary disposition
Views: 706  |  Downloads: 23
A Summary of Motion
Views: 15  |  Downloads: 0
georgia motion for summary judgement
Views: 41  |  Downloads: 0
Motion for Summary Judgment
Views: 234  |  Downloads: 2
Motion for Summary Judgment
Views: 56  |  Downloads: 0
Motion
Views: 345  |  Downloads: 2