Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 325969; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, Hoekstra, and Shapiro; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s request for a special jury instruction on causation and wage loss, because the proposed instruction would have added nothing to the standard jury instructions.
Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident and her no-fault insurer, defendant State Farm, paid more than $25,000 in benefits. When State Farm ceased coverage, plaintiff brought this action, seeking medical expenses, replacement services and wage-loss benefits. At trial, plaintiff requested two special jury instructions: one relating to causation and the other relating to wage-loss benefits. The trial court denied plaintiff’s request, finding the standard jury instruction on causation was sufficient and that plaintiff’s proposed instruction on wage loss was too duplicative. A jury determined that plaintiff was entitled to nothing, and the trial court entered a no cause of action verdict. The trial court then denied plaintiff’s motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the standard jury instructions were appropriate.
Regarding plaintiff’s proposed causation jury instruction, the Court of Appeals said that plaintiff’s offered “arising out of” instruction was incomplete and did not add anything to the standard jury instruction. According to the Court, the instruction given by the trial court was a fair and adequate explanation of statutory causation. The Court noted:
“Consistent with the statutory language, the trial court instructed the jury on the[] requirements, stating that plaintiff must show that ‘plaintiff’s injuries arose out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle’ and that ‘the plaintiff incurred allowable expenses which consist of reasonable charges for reasonably necessary products, services, and accommodations for the plaintiff’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation.’”
Regarding plaintiff’s proposed wage-loss instruction, the Court of Appeals said the trial court’s instruction fairly presented the issue to the jury and that plaintiff did not demonstrate any error in this regard. Citing the jury instruction that was given, the Court said the instruction was a fair and accurate statement of the law on wage loss, as set forth in the No-Fault Act.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals noted the dispositive question was whether plaintiff sustained a loss of income due to her accident-related injury. The Court said it did not see how plaintiff’s proposed instructions would have helped the jury in making this determination. According to the Court:
“The jury was accurately informed that plaintiff could receive benefits for ‘loss of income from work the plaintiff would have performed during the first three years after the accident had she not been injured.’ This was a fair and adequate statement of the law, and we see no basis for reversal.”
