 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brooks v. Moore12/1/2000
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff Michael J. Brooks, personal representative of the estate of Pepsi Morgan, deceased, filed a wrongful death action alleging that defendant Kelly Leide Moore was responsible for the death of her granddaughter, Pepsi Morgan, who was killed when defendant Moore's negligence caused an automobile accident. Plaintiff had also sued defendant William Ross Groover, III, for negligently entrusting defendant Moore with his automobile in light of his knowledge that she was a cocaine addict. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action against either defendant. Plaintiff appeals as of right from a judgment entered on the jury verdict. We affirm.
I.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by reading a jury instruction on an excused statutory violation, improperly added a sudden emergency instruction to the excused statutory violation instruction and erred by reading improper instructions on loss of memory and proximate cause. We disagree.
Plaintiff challenges the court's decision to read SJI2d 12.02 relating to an excuse for violation of a statute, and to modify it by adding an additional instruction relating to a sudden emergency. The court instructed the jury as follows:
However, if you find the defendant Kelly Groover [f/k/a Moore] used ordinary care and was still unable to avoid the violation, the violation is excused. If you find the defendant violated the statute and the violation was not excused you must decide whether such violation was a cause of the occurrence.
If you find that the defendant Kelly Groover used ordinary care and was still unable to avoid the collision because she was confronted by a sudden emergency not due to her own misconduct, the defendants William Groover and Kelly Groover are not liable to the plaintiff.
The determination whether an instruction is accurate and applicable based on the characteristics of a case is in the sound discretion of the trial court. Stevens v Veenstra, 226 Mich App 441, 443; 573 NW2d 341 (1997); Williams v Coleman, 194 Mich App 606, 623; 488 NW2d 464 (1992).
We find that the trial court acted properly within its discretion in reading the instruction on excuse of a statutory violation. The testimony at trial by several witnesses showed that uncertainty existed as to whether defendant Moore violated any traffic laws before her accident. Under the circumstances the instruction given was necessary to give the jury guidance as to how to apply the law to its findings of fact.
The court gave the sudden emergency instruction after deciding that the standard jury instructions were insufficient under the circumstances. When the standard instructions do not adequately cover an area, the trial court is obligated to give additional instructions when requested if the supplemental instructions properly inform on the applicable law and are supported by the evidence. Koester v Novi, 213 Mich App 653, 664; 540 NW2d 765 (1995), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grds 458 Mich 1; 580 NW2d 835 (1998). The determination whether the supplemental instructions are applicable and accurate is within the trial court's discretion. Stoddard v Manufacturers Nat'l Bank of Grand Rapids, 234 Mich App 140, 162; 593 NW2d 630 (1999).
We find that the court's addition of the sudden emergency instruction was appropriate. The jury could have believed testimony by several witnesses that the roadway was covered with black ice at the time of the accident which was undetectable until the vehicle began to skid. The jury could have found that black ice created a sudden emergency that defendant Moore was unable to avoid. Contrary to plaintiff's conten
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|