Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258946; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Schuette, and Borrello; 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)]
Evidentiary Issues [3135]
Trial Procedure Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in this action for non-economic damages, finding that because issues of fact existed regarding plaintiff’s injuries, the trial court properly refused to disturb the jury’s verdict. In addition, the Court of Appeals also found the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence and, therefore, the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff in this third-party action claimed she sustained a cervical thoracic strain and that her fibromyalgia was related to her motor vehicle accident. At trial, the jury found that plaintiff was not injured in the accident. On appeal, plaintiff asserts she was entitled to JNOV because she presented credible evidence of her injuries. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and affirmed, noting that credible evidence cannot void a jury verdict. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff presented a credible question of fact as to whether she was injured in the 2002 accident. However, presentation of a credible case does not nullify a jury verdict. It is solely within the province of the jury to decide questions of fact. Accordingly, because evidence at trial created a question of fact for the jury regarding the issue of injury, the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for JNOV.”
The court then rejected plaintiff’s alternate argument that she was entitled to a new trial because the jury verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. In rejecting plaintiff’s argument, the court noted the best evidence plaintiff presented was testimony of a doctor that her injury “was a possible result of the accident,” which the jury was free to accept or reject. In this regard, the court stated:
“Here, the best objective finding that plaintiff was injured was Dr. Morton’s testimony that her pelvic malalignment was as a possible result of the accident. The jury was free to accept or reject Dr. Morton’s testimony. . . . The jury apparently determined that the accident did not cause or exacerbate plaintiff’s symptoms, or that plaintiff’s symptoms were related to a pre-existing condition, which was the result of an earlier car accident in 2001. Considering that no other doctor could find an objective basis for plaintiff’s complaints and that there was an alternative source for them, the evidence did not preponderate so heavily against the verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow it to stand. . . . Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.”
