GROSTIC v. AGCO CORP., 465 Mich. 949 (2002)

639 N.W.2d 807

BEVERLY GROSTIC, Personal Representative of the Estate of Gerald F. Grostic, and BEVERLY GROSTIC, GERALD GROSTIC, JR., and JASON GROSTIC, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. AGCO CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, S+L+H, S.p.A., a foreign partnership, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees.

No. 119317-18 (53).Supreme Court of Michigan.
January 23, 2002.

COA: 218848 218849, Livingston CC: 96-014968-NP

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants from the May 4, 2001, decision of the Court of Appeals are considered, and, in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, we VACATE the decision of the Court of Appeals and REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration. In this product liability case, a split Court of Appeals panel affirmed the denial of defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. As the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals observed, however, the majority inverted the burden of proof by relying in part on an alleged lack of evidence to support the defense theory of causation. The majority should instead have confined its analysis to whether plaintiffs’ evidence was sufficient. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals on remand shall apply the appropriate standards in reviewing the denial of defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants is DENIED because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

Page 950

Cavanagh and Kelly, JJ., would deny leave to appeal.