Court dismisses corporate defendant, finding officer's lies don't create question of fact

Linda Enders sued Lynn Borg and others after she was hurt in a car accident caused by  Borg while driving drunk.  Right after the wreck, Borg admitted she was drinking and claimed that she was leaving a meeting related to the Community Foundation of St. Clair.  Enders joined the Foundation in her injury lawsuit, arguing that it was vicariously liable for Borg's drunken driving, since Borg was leaving a Foundation work obligation.

Borg then changed her story and argued that she was drinking socially with a male companion.  The Foundation provided evidence that it had no relationship with Borg's companion, conducted no scheduled activities on the night in question, and generally denied that Borg was drinking in her role with the Foundation.  The Judge then granted summary disposition to the Foundation.  Enders appealed, arguing that Borg's original lies to the police created a question of fact regarding the purpose of her activities--creating an issue if credibility for the jury to decide.

The Court of Appeals rejected Enders' appeal.  It held that the lies Borg told immediately after the incident were not sufficient to create a "genuine issue of material fact."  Instead, the Court held that the self-serving testimony of the Foundation was sufficient to allow for summary disposition--even withouth "weighing the facts" and giving the non-moving party the benefit of the doubt.

In Michigan's current corporate/insurer-dominated jurisprudential climate, it is deemed more important to make decisions in favor of Defendants fast, than it is to assure we get the decisions right.