Negligence action arising from operation of a forklift; Causation; Ray v Swager; A proximate cause; Patrick v Turkelson; Comparative fault

The court held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to defendant-Meijer’s “negligence, both the cause in fact and the legal cause of” plaintiff-Le’s injuries, and his comparative negligence, if any. Thus, it reversed summary disposition for Meijer and remanded. Le, who was employed by nonparty-FHI, was injured while operating a standup forklift at a Meijer’s distribution center. He argued the trial court erred in determining that his conduct was the sole cause of his injuries. The court agreed. It found that, based on “the record evidence, reasonable minds could conclude that the multitask handle and/or the service brake did not operate as they were supposed to and/or the stopping distance was not appropriately adjusted within the required parameters. A jury could also reasonably conclude that Le did not attempt plugging two to three times at least 15 feet from the desk and then removed his foot from the brake pedal as he testified, or that Le was attempting to jump off the forklift contrary to his testimony. Thus, reasonable minds could differ as to the cause of the accident.” The court noted that it “may not assess credibility or resolve factual disputes in analyzing whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Le as the nonmoving party,” a genuine issue of material fact existed “whether the forklift was properly maintained, calibrated, and working as it should at the time of the incident.” The court next considered if there was “a material factual dispute whether defendant’s negligence was a cause in fact of” Le’s injuries. He testified that during the year plus he had worked for FHI, “he never experienced an issue with braking systems on any of the forklifts.” But he asserted “the braking system did not respond on the date of the incident and because the forklift did not stop, his leg was crushed. Le presented evidence demonstrating a logical sequence of cause and effect sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding cause in fact. A jury could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the forklift did not operate as it was supposed to and more likely than not, but for [it] malfunctioning, it would not have collided with the desk and Le would not have been injured.” The court also found a “jury could reasonably conclude that Meijer’s failure to maintain the forklift in a workable condition is a legal cause of Le’s injuries.”