When Persistence Pays Off: Our Michigan Court of Appeals Win for an Injured Client

Not every victory happens in a courtroom in front of a jury. Sometimes, justice requires persistence, deep knowledge of the law, and the willingness to keep fighting—even after a case is dismissed.

Recently, Giroux Pappas Trial Attorneys secured a major win in the Michigan Court of Appeals, reviving a negligence case on behalf of our client after the trial court had dismissed it. [Russell v Black Diamond Fireworks LLS]

Our Clients’ Life Changed Forever

The case arises from the injuries sustained during the 2021 annual Izzone Campout, a long-standing MSU tradition where students camp out for several days to earn priority seating for men’s basketball games. On this fall evening, a fireworks display was held at the campout. Roughly 10 to 15 minutes into the show, our client was looking up watching the firework display and was struck in the right eye by a heavy object falling from the sky. He has permanently lost central vision in that eye.

Refusing to Let the Case End

Our client suffered a devastating injury during a public event. Despite compelling circumstantial evidence—including eyewitness accounts, medical findings, and expert testimony—the trial court ruled that the case should be dismissed, concluding there was insufficient proof of causation. Put another way, the trial court said it was impossible to prove what struck our client in the eye.

We disagreed With That Ruling

From the beginning, we believed the law was clear: when evidence supports a reasonable likelihood of causation, the case belongs in front of a jury. Letting this case end at summary disposition would have denied our client that opportunity.

Taking the Fight to the Michigan Court of Appeals

Appeals are not easy. They require precision, strategy, and a deep understanding of how appellate courts analyze evidence and legal standards. We carefully briefed the case, highlighting how the trial court improperly weighed evidence and resolved factual disputes that should have been left to a jury.

The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed.

In its decision, the court held that:

• Circumstantial evidence can establish causation
• Expert testimony and witness accounts created genuine issues of material fact
• Conflicts in evidence should not be decided at summary disposition

As a result, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and sent the case back to the trial court, giving our client the chance to pursue justice.

Why This Matters: This win is about more than one case.

It’s about standing up for injured people when the system tells them “no.” It’s about knowing the law—and having the courage to challenge decisions that get it wrong. And it’s about treating every case as trial-worthy, even when the fight takes you to the appellate courts.

It is also a reminder that you can prove a case through “purely circumstantial” evidence. While TV police shows may characterize circumstantial evidence as somehow bad or inadequate, the reality is, in fact, the opposite. The quintessential “smoking gun” is actually an example of circumstantial evidence – a smoking gun must have just been fired, regardless if you saw or heard the shot. All evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, can be used to prove your case.

At Giroux Pappas Trial Attorneys, we don’t walk away from cases we believe in. We don’t take shortcuts. And we don’t stop fighting just because the road gets harder.

Our client’s case lives on because we refused to let it die.

Trial Attorneys is Part of Our Name for Good Reason

If you or a loved one have been injured and are seeking council, you should ask prospective attorneys about their trial experience. Whether a trial is necessary or not, your case will be prepared, with exceptional skill and legal knowlege. Opposing council will sit up and take notice.

Congratulations to Andrew Laurila and the Giroux Pappas team for securing this important reversal in the Michigan Court of Appeals. Their persistence, hard work and legal knowledge will allow this case to proceed.