BROWN v. MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE, INC., 459 Mich. 873 (1998)

585 N.W.2d 302

No. 110805.Supreme Court of Michigan.
September 29, 1998.

Summary Dispositions September 29, 1998.

In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the decision of the Court of Appeals, 225 Mich. App. 617 (1997), is reversed, and the case is remanded to the geneses Circuit Court for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Michigan Bell under MCR 2.116(C)(8). MCR 7.302(F)(1). The question whether a duty exists depends in part on foreseeability. McMillan v. State Hwy Comm, 426 Mich. 46, 61-62 (1986), quoting Moning v. Alfono, 400 Mich. 425, 439 (1977). While plaintiffs have offered evidence as envisioned by Etter v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co, 179 Mich. App. 551
(1989), in support of their claim of negligence, such evidence is insufficient to raise a question of foreseeability as a matter of law. The allegations within the

Page 874

plaintiffs’ complaint, which focused on the general likelihood of a motor vehicle accident in the vicinity, failed to make a showing of the foreseeability of an accident involving defendant’s phone stand. McMillan at Defendants did not owe plaintiffs a duty to protect them from the unusual chain of events that led to their injury. McMillan and Etter, supra.

Reported below: (On Remand) 225 Mich. App. 617.