 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ford v. Architectural Door & Millwork12/28/2004
UNPUBLISHED
These appeals arise out of a judgment of no cause of action rendered by a jury on plaintiff's claims against the supplier of woodwork for his house. We affirm in part and remand in part.
Plaintiff acted as his own general contractor in building a new residence for himself. Defendant Architectural Door and Millwork (ADAM) supplied the doors for the house. Plaintiff inquired of ADAM to recommend a supplier for the interior trim and ADAM recommended defendant Blackwell-Conway (Blackwell). Plaintiff, through ADAM, ordered the wood trim from Blackwell. The woodwork was delivered to the construction site in the same packaging as it was shipped in from Blackwell with no additional preparation or other work by ADAM. The trim was installed by a carpenter hired by plaintiff and painted by a painter hired by plaintiff.
After the painting of the trim, plaintiff alleges that defects in the wood, known as "chattering," became apparent in the window and door casings. Those defects were not visible prior to installation and painting. Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the woodwork and, after being unable to resolve the situation, commenced the instant action against ADAM as the supplier. Plaintiff later amended his complaint to add a count of negligence against Blackwell. Additionally, ADAM filed a third-party action against Blackwell as the manufacturer seeking indemnification. Blackwell in turn looked to its liability insurance carrier, Northland Insurance, for coverage and commenced a third-party action against Northland when Northland denied coverage.
Before trial, ADAM brought a motion for partial summary disposition, which was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the trial court granted summary disposition as to plaintiff's claims for negligence and implied warranty of fitness, but denied summary disposition as to plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and violation of the consumer protection act. In the same order, the trial court also dismissed ADAM's third-party claim against Blackwell for common-law indemnity. After trial, the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action on plaintiff's contract and consumer protection act claims.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition on the negligence and implied warranty claims. Grants of summary disposition are reviewed de novo. Rose v Nat'l Auction Group, 466 Mich 453, 461; 646 NW2d 455 (2002). But we agree with ADAM that, even if summary disposition was improper, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. To be viable, plaintiff's claims require that the woodwork be defective. But the jury found that the woodwork was not defective. Specifically, Question 13 of the jury verdict form asked whether Blackwell was negligent in the manufacture of the door and window casings and the jury answered, "no." Accordingly, we must agree with ADAM that, even had the two dismissed claims been submitted to the jury, there is no reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of no cause of action on those counts as well. Therefore, reversal is not appropriate. MCR 2.613(A).
Plaintiff next argues that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence and that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment NOV or new trial. We disagree. The Supreme Court explained the standard of review for such claims in Wilkinson v Lee, 463 Mich 388, 391; 617 NW2d 305 (2000):
The appellate court is to review the evidence and all legitimate inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Only if the evidence so viewed fails to establish a claim as a matter of law, should the motion be granted.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|