Kersten v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange , 82 Mich. App. 459 ( 1978 )

J. H. Gillis, P. J.

(concurring). While I am in complete agreement with the result reached by the majority in the instant case, I am compelled to write separately in order to express my dissatisfaction with the factual findings made by the trial court.¹

The majority opinion sets forth, in footnote 7, five possible explanations as to how the tire and rim happened to be in the middle of the highway when plaintiffs’ car passed. The trial court determined that possibility number five explained the presence of the tire on the highway.

I cannot affirm the trial court’s factual findings since I find them to be based upon speculation and conjecture. I believe that there are more than five plausible explanations as to how the tire and rim came to be upon the highway at the time of the accident.

Accordingly, I would find the trial court’s factual findings erroneous and reverse on that basis as well.

1 The majority concludes that these findings are not erroneous.