Premises liability; Causation; Circumstantial proof; Skinner v Square D Co; Speculation vs reasonable inference

Holding that plaintiff presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of causation to survive summary disposition, the court reversed the dismissal and the related costs award. Plaintiff alleged she fell in a parking lot due to a “defect” consisting of loose gravel, potholes, uneven concrete, and a significant grade change. The trial court granted summary disposition on the ground her testimony varied as to whether she fell on loose pavement, loose gravel, or cracked pavement. On appeal, the court held the trial court misapplied the rule that circumstantial proof must support “‘reasonable inferences of causation, not mere speculation.’” It explained that a “conjecture” remains where the evidence has no “‘selective application’” to one explanation, but that a claim may proceed when “‘there is evidence which points to any 1 theory of causation, indicating a logical sequence of cause and effect.’” The court found plaintiff consistently identified “a specific, degraded area of the parking lot,” and supported that account with a photograph taken the next day showing “uneven pavement, loose gravel, and other similar forms of debris,” and deposition testimony pinpointing the same area on an aerial image. Because that evidence “points to ‘1 theory of causation,’” reversal was required. Remanded.