Motorcyclist's injury claim is summarily dismissed

The Court of Appeals upheld an Ogemaw Circuit judge's summary dismissal of a motorcyclist's injury case. The biker had apparently said that he was driving in the right-hand lane when he was hit by a car driven by Amy Dailey.  The expert hired by his lawyers had a theory that the collision happened in the left lane after the victim had moved into that lane.  The Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that since the expert's theory didn't conform to the facts elicited from the biker-plaintiff, his testimony wasn't admissible.  The Court agreed and dismissed the case.  The plaintiff appealed, arguing that his expert should be allowed to explain his theory of the collision, even if it contradicted what the victim initially explained.  It is difficult to tell from the poorly written opinion (the case even states, e.g.,  "we agree with the trial court that defendant cannot establish negligent conduct on behalf of defendant...") whether the Plaintiff merely mis-spoke in his deposition, or whether his expert was attempting to rescue him from a lie.

In any event, he won't have an opportunity for a jury to make that analysis, as the Court of Appeals upheld the summary dismissal.  The appeals panel relied on the (usually inadmissible) finding of fault at the scene and hazardous action assessments, and summarily excluded the expert testimony.   Giebel v. Dailey is not an unusual type of opinion for panelist Kirsten F. Kelly, the appellate judge who seems to relish striking down injury claims on behalf of insurers.