![blueharvest fractured blueharvest fractured](https://notagamer.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/rune-1140x646.png)
Blueharvest fractured trial#
The trial court decided to rehear Blue Harvest's request for summary disposition on plaintiff's premises liability claim. The trial court denied Blue Harvest's motion, citing its earlier order denying the motion for summary disposition.Īt a later proceeding, plaintiff's attorney surprised the court when he informed it that plaintiff was pursuing his negligence claim on both a premises liability and an ordinary negligence theory. The trial court entered an order denying Blue Harvest's motion for summary disposition without the benefit of oral argument, holding that plaintiff's complaint sounded only in ordinary negligence and that "efendant's motion argues against a legal theory which has not been pled." Blue Harvest moved for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court committed palpable error because plaintiff's claim was based exclusively on premises liability -not ordinary negligence. Blue Harvest moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that the lawsuit sounded in premises liability and that because plaintiff failed to show that Blue Harvest had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged hazardous condition, summary disposition was appropriate. Plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against Blue Harvest on June 20, 2016, alleging negligence and loss of consortium.
![blueharvest fractured blueharvest fractured](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/97/78/a4/9778a4f709bdfb8b3b31e185d6fe1e9f.jpg)
Blueharvest fractured cracked#
Unfortunately, LaLone used the remaining undamaged boxes after the incident and threw away the cracked pallet before plaintiff could inspect it.
Blueharvest fractured crack#
However, he was unsure whether the crack was on the back side or the front side of the pallet because "verything was flipped over." LaLone opined that the incident may have been caused by a damaged pallet however, there was no indication whether the pallet was cracked before the incident because the cardboard obscured the view of the pallet. After the incident, LaLone noted that one of the pallets that fell was cracked. Importantly, he admitted that if the cardboard was properly stacked, it should not "go anywhere," but he did not know what happened to cause the cardboard to fall. He had worked on farms that had used that method of storage for 50 years without incident. LaLone testified at his deposition that stacking cardboard in this manner was normal in the industry. Together, the tower of cardboard weighed 1,000 pounds and reached a height of 14 feet. A week before the incident, LaLone used a forklift to move the bound pallets of cardboard in the warehouse and stacked them three bundles high. Each stack of cardboard was bound to a wooden pallet with nylon straps and was delivered to Blue Harvest by an outside vendor. According to LaLone, each pallet of stacked cardboard was four feet long and four feet high. Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries, including a broken hip that required emergency hip replacement surgery.īlue Harvest did not preserve the pallets or cardboard boxes that fell, nor were there any photographs taken. The top two bundles unexpectedly fell on them. As plaintiff and LaLone walked through the warehouse where packaging materials were stored, they passed a stack of three pallets of unassembled cardboard boxes near the walkway. On October 28, 2014, plaintiff met with Blue Harvest's owner, Adam LaLone, to inspect a malfunctioning air compressor on Blue Harvest's premises. Blue Harvest is a family-owned blueberry farm and packaging facility located in West Olive, Michigan. Plaintiff was employed by Air Components, Inc., as an air-compressor technician and salesperson. However, it was permissible to proceed on the premises liability theory, the jury instructions on res ipsa loquitur and spoliation as to premises liability were proper, and it was appropriate for the jury to find Blue Harvest liable on the premises liability claim. We conclude that the trial court erred when it allowed plaintiff to proceed to trial on both a premises liability and an ordinary negligence theory. On appeal, Blue Harvest raises multiple allegations of error originating from the trial court's denial of Blue Harvest's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and from its motion for a new trial, JNOV, and remittitur. 1 Defendant, Blue Harvest Farms, LLC, appeals the trial court's order denying its motion for a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), and remittitur. In this negligence case, a jury awarded a total judgment of $358,288.98 in favor of plaintiffs, John and Ailene Pugno.