Harris v. Rahman
This text of 695 N.W.2d 69 (Harris v. Rahman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
HARRIS
v.
RAHMAN.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
SC: 126922. COA: 247253.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 22, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), we direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action permitted by MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall include among the issues to be addressed at oral argument: (1) Can plaintiff prevail if she did not present documentary evidence that defendant knew the quantity of mercury involved when he first spoke with plaintiff on the telephone, or that *70 defendant's statements directly contradicted the advice of the Poison Control Center? (2) Could a reasonable juror conclude that defendant's conduct amounted to reckless conduct showing a substantial lack of concern as to whether injury would result? (3) If so, do defendant's actions constitute "the" proximate cause of the injuries in this case as required by MCL 691.1407(2)(c)? See, Robinson v. Detroit, 462 Mich. 439, 613 N.W.2d 307 (2002). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 28 days of the date of this order.
The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
695 N.W.2d 69, 472 Mich. 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-rahman-mich-2005.