Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 63207; Published
Per Curiam Opinion; 5-2 (with C.J. Coleman and J. Ryan Dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: _____; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Trial Procedure Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a 5-2 per curiam Opinion, the Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict of no cause for action in a third party tort case on the grounds that remarks by defense counsel in closing argument denied plaintiff a fair trial. In his argument to the jury, defense counsel, over plaintiff’s objection, remarked at some length on his opinions of the statutory scheme and legislative intent of no-fault legislation and the effect that a verdict in favor of plaintiff would have on the continued workability of no-fault legislation. The only issue for determination in the case was whether the plaintiff had suffered a threshold injury. Defense counsel talked at length about the first party benefits available to the plaintiff, the Legislature's desire to cut down court congestion, etc. The Supreme Court held that defense counsel's remarks may well have influenced the jury to decide the case on the basis of considerations not germane to the issue which was presented to them. The issue for jury consideration was not the continued viability of the no-fault act. Rather, the only issue for determination was whether the plaintiff had suffered a threshold injury.
Chief Justice Coleman, joined by Justice Ryan, dissented. They agreed that the defense counsel's remarks interjected irrelevant considerations into the trial and were improper. However, the remarks were not so prejudiced so as to deny the plaintiff a fair trial.