Jones v. Shek, Docket No. 14743
| Decision Date | 25 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 14743,No. 3,3 |
| Parties | Ruth JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John SHEK, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Duane S. van Benschoten, van Benschoten & van Benschoten, Saginaw, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas G. Grubba, Kitch & Suhrheinrich, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and McGREGOR and VanVALKENBURG, * JJ.
This is an action for damages resulting from the alleged professional negligence of the defendant, a licensed medical doctor. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that, while on duty as a nurse's aide at a general hospital, plaintiff discovered a patient, one Enriquez, in the act of assaulting another patient; that plaintiff attempted to aid the victimized patient and was then injured when Enriquez struck her. Plaintiff further alleges that Enriquez was the defendant's patient, and that defendant knew or should have known of the patient's violent traits or propensities, and that defendant was negligent in failing to order quieting medication, segregation, restraint, or attention in a ward or hospital environment consistent with his condition and for the protection of those patients near him.
Defendant's answer was a general denial, in which he alleged that his professional orders for the care of his patient were in strict accordance with standards of practice of the medical profession. Defendant further alleged that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent; that the complaint was improper, inadequate, insufficient, and defective on its face, that it pled only legal conclusions and failed to state a cause of action either as a matter of law or of fact.
Over a period of three years, these parties engaged in a series of tactical discovery maneuvers, each apparently attempting to thwart the efforts of the other through various means and each filing motions to compel or avoid discovery of the other. Both parties failed to comply with the discovery procedures required by the general court rules. The trial court heard defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted the same, on the basis that plaintiff's answers to interrogatories indicated no factual basis for the complaint, and that plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
From the summary judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals and contends that the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment for the defendant for the reason that no genuine factual basis was shown to exist in support of the complaint, particularly because the affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment did not aver that the affiant could testify from personal knowledge to the contents thereof.
A review of the record discloses that the affidavit in question, in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment, was signed by defense counsel and merely states conclusions of counsel and facts known to the affiant only upon information and belief. Such an affidavit is inadequate, as it failed to comply with the requirements that such affidavits must show affirmatively that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently to the facts set forth in the affidavit. GCR 1963, 117.3, 116.4.
Motions for summary judgment, each with an affidavit in support, were filed with defendant's answer on three occasions, over a period of three years. Each motion, each affidavit, and the answer to the original complaint are signed by defense counsel; no pleadings or affidavits in support of the motions were ever filed which were sworn to by any person with personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein.
Un...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Witucke v. Presque Isle Bank
...accompanied by an affidavit from defendant's attorney, a practice that is condemned in certain instances. E.g., Jones v. Shek, 48 Mich.App. 530, 533, 210 N.W.2d 808 (1973). However, we believe that the knowledge of the release was properly sworn to by the affiant-attorney. Moreover, there w......
-
Karrar v. Barry County Road Com'n
...submitted upon information and belief are not sufficient to support a motion under subrule 117.2(3). See, e.g., Jones v. Shek, 48 Mich.App. 530, 210 N.W.2d 808 (1973); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Beauregard, 119 Mich.App. 103, 326 N.W.2d 439 (1982). Such affidavits are insufficient because they do......
-
Brooks v. Reed, Docket No. 78-3254
...that allegations are true to the best of the affiant's knowledge and belief are generally insufficient. Jones v. Shek, 48 Mich.App. 530, 532-533, 210 N.W.2d 808 (1973); Sun Insurance Office, Limited v. Keller, 46 Mich.App. 761, 208 N.W.2d 525 (1973); Huron School Dist. v. Huron Twp., 42 Mic......
-
SSC Associates Ltd. Partnership v. General Retirement System of City of Detroit
...N.W.2d 392. Defendant was under no obligation to submit affidavits in response to plaintiff's defective motion. Jones v. Shek, 48 Mich.App. 530, 533, 210 N.W.2d 808 (1973); Bobier, supra. Plaintiff's failure to file legally sufficient affidavits in support of its motion was fatal to the mot......