The case resulted from the 2010 Enbridge oil spill into the Kalamazoo River. The plaintiff alleged he was injured as a result of his exposure to toxic fumes from the spilled oil. Plaintiff complained of headaches that started within 24 hours of the spill, as well as vomiting which led to the rupture of an artery. Defendant Enbridge was already adjudged to have been negligent in the release of oil into the river, so the issue before the court involved tying the oil spill to the cause of plaintiff’s medical issues.
The trial court determined that there was insufficient evidence of causation and granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that there was a strong enough logical sequence of cause and effect for a jury to reasonably conclude that plaintiff's exposure to oil fumes caused his injuries.However, the Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the plaintiff’s evidence reflects the logical fallacy of post hoc reasoning and as such, reversed the Court of Appeals decision and reinstated the trial court order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
The decision is Lowery v Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, Supreme Court 151600 (decided July 25, 2017).
Read more about our expertise in personal injury actions.
PERSONAL INJURY LAWAbout the Author
