Injury from a fireworks display; Factual causation

The court concluded that plaintiff had “established a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether a ‘dud firework,’ or debris related to fireworks exhibition, was the object that impacted him” at a student event. Thus, the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to defendant-Black Diamond Fireworks was reversed and remanded. In his deposition testimony, plaintiff’s roommate, W “asserted that plaintiff’s injury transpired approximately 10 minutes into the fireworks presentation, and Detective [I] expressed that she saw various debris falling from the sky as she was standing on the field during the fireworks display.” Plaintiff’s girlfriend (H), Sergeant L, and MSU Department of Public Safety Sergeant M “further corroborated that the fireworks were exploding at a low altitude, in close proximity to spectators, and with debris. Medical documentation additionally indicated that both the paramedics and hospital staff believed that there was debris in plaintiff’s eye, which” plaintiff’s expert witness “affirmed was consistent with an injury arising from a dud firework, specifically fireworks featuring 2 or 3-inch aerial shells.” Defendant argued in the trial court, and continued “to argue on appeal, that there was ‘no evidence to present to the jury to determine whether he was struck by a firework, a rock, a ball, a fist, a bottle, an elbow, a shoe, anything.’ But a ‘plaintiff is not required to produce evidence that positively eliminates every other potential cause.’ Rather, the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient if it ‘establishes a logical sequence of cause and effect, notwithstanding the existence of other plausible [theories], although other plausible theories may also have evidentiary support.’” While defendant characterized “plaintiff’s causation theory as mere speculation, the aforementioned testimony delineates a sequence of events—from the deployment of the fireworks to plaintiff’s injury—such that there was a reasonable likelihood of probability a stray firework or shell may have struck plaintiff.” Moreover, the court found that “despite defendant’s contentions to the contrary, the discrepancies between the testimonies of defendant’s employees and [W] concerning the exact type of fireworks used during the subject exhibition and the proper minimum safety zone constituted conflicts in evidence that should not be resolved on summary disposition.”