Oil spill toxic tort case; Cause in fact; Skinner v. Square D Co.; Reasoning post hoc ergo propter hoc; Genesee Merchs. Bank & Trust Co. v. Payne; Reliance simply on a temporal relationship; West v. General Motors Corp.

In an order, the court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment (see e-Journal # 59650 in the 4/20/15 edition) and reinstated the trial court’s order granting the defendants summary disposition in this oil spill toxic tort case, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact on the issue of causation. The court noted that “a plaintiff may show ‘cause in fact’ through circumstantial evidence and ‘reasonable inferences’ therefrom,” but not through conjecture or mere speculation, “such as reasoning post hoc ergo propter hoc[.]” Plaintiff’s “expert opined that the defendants’ oil spill was the cause in fact of plaintiff’s injury, reasoning that the plaintiff ‘wasn’t having the problems before [the oil spill] and he was having the problems afterwards.’” While the Court of Appeals found that plaintiff’s evidence reflected “a ‘logical sequence of cause and effect,’” the court concluded that the evidence reflected “the logical fallacy of post hoc reasoning.”

Chief Justice Markman, joined by Justices Zahra and Wilder, concurred in the decision because plaintiff did not present evidence showing either general or specific causation, but wrote separately “to provide counsel to the bench and bar concerning toxic tort litigation.”