 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bynum v. Esab Group9/24/2002
This product liability litigation has an extensive history. It is now before this Court on defendant's application for leave to appeal. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the order of the circuit court that granted plaintiff's motion for new trial. The judgment of no cause of action is reinstated.
I.
Plaintiff was injured in 1988 while operating a robotic welding system that was manufactured by defendant. The case has been tried three times. In the first trial, the jury awarded plaintiff $50,000 for economic and non-economic damages and reduced the award by finding that plaintiff had been partially at fault for her injuries. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict regarding her negligence, and additur of $849,750 or a new trial. The trial court agreed with plaintiff that the comparative negligence verdict was contrary to the evidence.
It ordered a new trial, limited to the issue of damages. At the conclusion of the second jury trial, a verdict in excess of $2 million was returned. The defendant appealed both the decision granting a second trial and the verdict of the second trial. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but said the second trial should not have been limited to determination of damages. The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial on all issues. This Court denied the defendant's application for leave to appeal and the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant.
The matter was returned to the circuit court where a third trial was held. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action. The plaintiff filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. The trial court granted the motion for a new trial following an evidentiary hearing on plaintiff's claim that several jurors failed to disclose racial biases. The trial court reasoned that under MCR 2.611 a new trial was required because of juror misconduct even though the court could not and did not conclude that the jury verdict was tainted by the alleged undisclosed prejudice.
The defendant sought leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals granted defendant's application and stayed trial court proceedings pending resolution of the appeal. Following submission of the case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling. No error was perceived in the trial court's crediting the testimony that jurors were biased, but failed to reveal that bias in voir dire. The Court said the bias would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.
We review the trial judge's factual findings for clear error. People v Attebury, 463 Mich 662, 668; 624 NW2d 912 (2001). The decision to grant a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kelly v Builders Square, Inc, 465 Mich 29, 34; 632 NW2d 912 (2001). Where the trial court misapprehends the law to be applied, an abuse of discretion occurs. Miller v Varilek, 117 Mich App 165, 170; 323 NW2d 637 (1982). We reverse and remand for reinstatement of the judgment on the jury verdict in the last trial.
II.
Jurors are presumed to be qualified. The burden of proving the existence of a disqualification is on the party alleging it. People v Collins, 166 Mich 4, 9; 131 NW 78 (1911). Voir dire is the process by which litigants may question prospective jurors so that challenges to the prospective jurors can be intelligently exercised. People v Harrell, 398 Mich 384, 388; 247 NW2d 829 (1976). Prospective jurors are subject to challe
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.
|
|