Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Home - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

Through an order in <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/151600_85_01.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Lowery v. Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership</em>, No 151600</a>, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the determination of the Court of Appeals and ordered summary disposition be entered in favor of the defendant, who was alleged to be liable for plaintiff&#39;s bodily injury caused by an oil spill.  The Court concluded that the plaintiff&#39;s expert&#39;s causation opinion was, essentially, that the plaintiff did not have problems before the spill, and that his health issues developed after the spill.  The Court found that this was fallacious <em>post hoc</em> reasoning and did not support a dispute of material fact on the required element of causation. Justice Markman, joined by Justices Zahra and Wilder, wrote an extensive concurring opinion detailing his view of the expert causation testimony necessary to sustain a toxic tort claim.   

core/freeform

Partner

Jason L. Byrne

Labor and Employment

MSC invalidates post hoc causation reasoning

The Warner Norcross + Judd LLP lawyer responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website is managing partner <a href="/people/mark-j-wassink/" aria-label="Mark Wassink">Mark Wassink</a> who can be reached at <a href="mailto:mwassink@wnj.com" aria-label="email Mark Wassink">mwassink@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2189. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website.

MSC invalidates post hoc causation reasoning

professionals