## Facts

- In July 1963, Ann and James Rockwell attended a golf tournament at Hillcrest Country Club, Inc.’s course as spectators.
- Spectators gathered on a suspension bridge on the course spanning a river; immediately before the failure, about 80–100 people and a golf cart were on the bridge.
- The bridge collapsed, dropping the occupants into the river below; Ann Rockwell fell about 25 feet and suffered serious injuries, and James Rockwell sought damages related to those injuries.
- The bridge had been built in 1953. Hillcrest’s president, Woodrow W. Woody, had been told at the time of construction that the bridge could safely support about 25 people.
- Hillcrest initially posted a sign stating the maximum capacity, but Woody admitted that no maximum-capacity sign was posted on the day of the collapse and that he did not instruct anyone to limit the number of people on the bridge during the tournament.
- The Rockwells sued, claiming the bridge collapsed because it was overloaded and that Hillcrest was negligent for failing to warn of the maximum capacity and failing to take steps to prevent overcrowding.
- At trial, the plaintiffs did not present engineering or other technical expert testimony. The jury returned verdicts for plaintiffs, awarding damages to Ann and to James.
- The trial court directed a verdict for Woody individually, denied Hillcrest’s motion for a directed verdict, and later denied Hillcrest’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Hillcrest appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the proofs were sufficient to submit negligence and proximate cause to the jury and to withstand Hillcrest’s motions for directed verdict and JNOV.
2. Whether expert testimony was required to establish that overloading caused the bridge to collapse, where plaintiffs relied on circumstantial evidence and common experience about excessive loads.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against Hillcrest Country Club.
- The court held that the trial court properly denied Hillcrest’s motions for directed verdict and JNOV.
- The evidence permitted the jury to find that Hillcrest had notice of a limited safe capacity, failed to warn or control use of the bridge during a crowded tournament, and that the overloading was a proximate cause of the collapse and resulting injuries.
- The court rejected Hillcrest’s argument that the verdict was speculative merely because plaintiffs did not present expert testimony; the jury could draw reasonable inferences from the number of people and the golf cart on the bridge, Hillcrest’s knowledge of the limit, and the absence of a warning sign.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing a directed-verdict or JNOV motion, the court considers the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; if reasonable jurors could differ, the case is for the jury.
- A land possessor who invites members of the public onto the premises for the possessor’s purposes owes a duty of reasonable care to protect against unreasonable risks, including warning of dangers the possessor knows or should know.
- Negligence and proximate cause may be proven by circumstantial evidence; a plaintiff is not required to eliminate every other possible cause if the evidence supports a reasonable inference of causation.
- Expert testimony is required only when the subject matter is beyond ordinary juror understanding; it is not required when common experience allows jurors to assess whether excessive loading could cause a pedestrian bridge to fail.
- Evidence that a defendant knew of a maximum safe load and previously used a capacity warning can support a finding that failing to warn or limit crowding was unreasonable under the circumstances.

## Conclusion

Rockwell held that the jury could reasonably find Hillcrest negligent for failing to warn spectators of the bridge’s known capacity limit or to restrict access during a tournament crowd, and that the jury could infer from the circumstances—without technical experts—that overloading caused the collapse; accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the denial of directed verdict and JNOV and left the plaintiffs’ verdict intact.


Rockwell v. Hillcrest Country Club, 181 N.W.2d 290 (1970)