Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Landowner Liability

Plaintiff Failed to Show Further Discovery Would Likely Uncover Factual Support

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Wertz v. Schaper, No. 282721, 2009 WL 187573 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2009), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an entry of summary judgment for a defendant was not premature because the plaintiff had failed to show that further discovery could reasonably lead to factual support for her position.

Background

Relatives of a farm worker who had been killed while unloading hay from a trailer brought a negligence action against the worker's employer and the hay purchaser and its employee who had helped unload the hay. Id. at *1. The trial court granted the hay purchaser's motion for summary judgment due to lack of evidence to create a question of fact concerning its liability, and the plaintiff appealed. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiff argued that summary judgment was premature because discovery was not yet complete-she had requested to depose more of the defendant's employees, and she claimed she had contacted a possible expert witness concerning the accident. Id. at *2.

Analysis and Holdings

After examining the evidence already obtained during discovery, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to show that further discovery could reasonably lead to the uncovering of factual support for her position, or that she might be able to discover inaccuracies in the defendant's deposition testimony if given the opportunity to depose additional witnesses. Id. at *2-3. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's order granting summary judgment to the defendant. Id. at *3.

The case was decided on January 27, 2009.