Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 217072; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Whitbeck, and Collins; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Trial Procedure Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals dealt with several issues regarding plaintiff’s tort claim for serious impairment of body function.
First, the court refused to disturb the trial court’s ruling denying plaintiffs’ motion for JNOV, new trial or additur. At trial, the court denied defendants’ motion for directed verdict on plaintiffs’ threshold claim, because the court, based upon argument of plaintiffs’ counsel, concluded that there was a substantial question of fact requiring jury determination. In light of the fact that plaintiffs’ counsel argued the threshold issue was a factual question and not a matter of law, plaintiffs had waived this issue on appeal. In this regard, the court stated, “not only did plaintiffs not object to the court’s finding that a material factual dispute existed with regard to the threshold issue, they affirmatively agreed with the court. Accordingly, they have waived this issue on appeal....” The threshold issue was thus presented to the jury, and the jury entered a verdict of no cause for action on the threshold claims. However, the jury awarded one of the plaintiffs economic loss damages for lost wages.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for new trial or additur on the economic damages award. The court found that those matters were within the trial court’s discretion and the trial court’s decision should not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Moreover, after careful review of the record, the Court of Appeals agreed that the jury’s findings were not against the great weight of the evidence. There was conflicting evidence presented at trial on the threshold issue, as well as evidence that involved the credibility of the parties. Thus, there was a reasonable basis for the jury’s verdict.
Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not commit error in admitting evidence that plaintiff was receiving $3,000 a month for wage loss during the first three years of the accident where the trial court had excluded evidence of the source of the payment and the evidence was admitted because it was relevant to show “a source of stress in [plaintiff’s] life.” Moreover, plaintiffs’ counsel elicited some of the evidence on this specific issue on cross-examination of plaintiff.
