If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

SANTWAN REESE, FOR PUBLICATION September 28, 2023 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 362140 Wayne Circuit Court JALEN CHRISTOPHER JAMES, HOUSEHOLD LC No. 20-006573-NI OF FAITH CHURCH, HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH, INC., and PROGRESSIVE MARATHON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, and THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, INC., also known as, THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, Defendant-Appellant.

SANTWAN REESE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 362151 Wayne Circuit Court JALEN CHRISTOPHER JAMES, PROGRESSIVE LC No. 20-006573-NI MARATHON INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, INC., also known as, THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH WHICH

-1- IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH, Defendants, and HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH CHURCH and HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and CAMERON, JJ.

SHAPIRO, P.J. (concurring).

I concur. As the majority makes clear, plaintiff testified that it was his belief, based on his direct observation, that defendant Jalen James was intentionally attempting to run him over. If this was not sufficiently clear from the initial impact, plaintiff testified that, after the initial impact, James put the van in reverse and attempted to back up to strike plaintiff a second time. By contrast, James testified that it was not his intent to hit plaintiff.

If this testimony was the extent of the evidence, I would conclude that there was a material question of fact for the jury. But this was not the extent of the evidence. James had already pleaded guilty to assault with intent to do great bodily harm, MCL 750.84(1)(a), and during his plea, while under oath, he admitted that he intended to hit plaintiff. Given that binding admission, I agree that there is no question of material fact and that the trial court erred by denying summary disposition to defendant owner.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

-2-