Dog-bite action; Strict liability; MCL 287.351; Common-law strict liability; MCL 287.288; Common-law negligence; Wrongful death; MCL 600.2922; Principle that the dog must cause the harm; MCL 287.351(1); Hiner v Mojica; Personal representative (PR)

Holding that because the parties presented conflicting evidence as to whether the dog actually bit the decedent, there was a genuine issue of material fact for the jury to resolve, the court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendants-dog owners and remanded. Plaintiff-PR sued defendants claiming their dog bit the decedent, which contributed to her ultimate death. Plaintiff alleged statutory strict liability, common-law strict liability, common-law negligence, and wrongful death. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition and dismissed the case with prejudice. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that summary disposition was improper because there was a genuine issue of material fact whether the dog bite occurred, which was the only issue raised in defendants’ motion. “Both parties presented evidence to support their respective arguments. Plaintiff presented evidence that the bite did occur, including his own affidavit, some photos, and various medical records and reports.” Defendants presented “evidence through various depositions, the animal control report, and an affidavit from the medical examiner to make the argument that a dog bite did not occur.” The court found that, based on “all of the conflicting evidence presented by both parties, there are two versions of how these events occurred. Because the trial court is required to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant, the trial court erred in not concluding that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether the bite occurred.”