Oil spill toxic tort case; Genna v. Jackson; Proximate cause; "Cause in fact"

Holding that there was enough circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, the court reversed the trial court's order granting summary disposition to the defendants and remanded. The case stemmed from the 2010 Enbridge Energy oil spill into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. Plaintiff alleged that he was injured as a result of being exposed to toxic fumes from the spilled oil. He testified by deposition that "he began to get headaches within 24 hours of the oil spill and its accompanying release of odor." There was no dispute that defendants breached the duty of care to plaintiff and that plaintiff suffered harm; the only dispute was whether the negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff's arterial rupture. Defendants contended that the testimony of plaintiff's medical expert was inadequate. The court noted, however, that in Genna, it held that "direct expert testimony that the toxin was the cause of the plaintiff's injury was not required to prove causation in a toxic tort case." The court held 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 vomiting, which ultimately caused his short gastric artery to rupture. Plaintiff lived in the vicinity of the oil spill and was aware of an overpowering odor and was aware that ‘the news just kept saying that headaches and nausea [sic].'" A reasonable reading of plaintiff's testimony was that "he had an approximately weeklong spell of severe migraines that started the day after the spill and then, approximately a week after that, he experienced a several-days-long bout of vomiting. During a fit of vomiting, plaintiff felt a sharp pain in his abdomen, and it turned out that his short gastric artery (which runs between the stomach and the spleen) had ruptured, requiring surgery." Given the proffered evidence, the claim that the "already-adjudged negligence of defendants in the release of oil into the Kalamazoo River caused the artery rupture" went beyond mere speculation. It was true that there were other plausible explanations for plaintiff's injury and that there were certain facts that could potentially be damaging to his case at trial. However, this only served to highlight that there were genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by a jury.