 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ellman v. Officenter3/15/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff, as Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for Linda Robertson, appeals as of right the October 6, 1999, judgment on jury verdict, in which judgment for plaintiff was entered against defendants Hogback Officenter and Flying Dutchman Management, Inc., but in which a no cause of action verdict, the sole subject of this appeal, was entered against defendant W.D. Construction, Inc. We affirm.
This case arises from Linda Robertson's slip and fall that occurred at Hogback Officenter's office complex near Ann Arbor on March 6, 1995. Robertson sustained injuries after falling on some ice and slush, and she subsequently filed the underlying negligence lawsuit against Hogback Officenter, Flying Dutchman Management, Inc., W.D. Construction, Inc., and Edgar Simons. Hogback owns the office complex; Flying Dutchman manages the complex for Hogback; Flying Dutchman contracted with W.D. Construction, Inc., for the removal of snow and for discretionary salting during the 1994-1995 snow season.
First, plaintiff argues that the court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to amend its caption and to exclude evidence referencing Robertson's bankruptcy . We disagree.
The decision whether to admit evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 457 Mich 593, 614; 580 NW2d 817 (1998). An abuse of discretion is found only if an unprejudiced person, considering the facts on which the trial court acted, would say that there was no justification or excuse for the ruling made, Ellsworth v Hotel Corp of America, 236 Mich App 185, 188; 600 NW2d 129 (1999), or the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias, Barrett v Kirtland Community College, 245 Mich App 306, 325; 628 NW2d 63 (2001).
Plaintiff's brief, relying upon MRE 401 and MRE 402, emphasizes the irrelevance of Robertson's bankruptcy status to defendant's contractual duties, defendant's breach of those duties, the proximate cause relationships between defendant's breach of duty and Robertson's accident, and the damages flowing from the accident.
MRE 401 provides that evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." By contrast, irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. MRE 402. The credibility of witnesses is a material issue and evidence that shows bias or prejudice of a witness is always relevant. Powell v St John Hospital, 241 Mich App 64, 72; 614 NW2d 666 (2000).
Thus, despite plaintiff's emphasis on the fact that Robertson's bankruptcy status was irrelevant to the elements of negligence, it does not necessarily follow that such fact was altogether irrelevant or immaterial; to the contrary, it addressed the defenses asserted and the issue of her credibility and her motive for bringing the lawsuit, along with the veracity of her damage claims. Moreover, the defenses asserted included the argument that Robertson was fiscally irresponsible and sought to collect in order to pay back her personal credit card debt, not in order to recoup compensation for injuries.
Plaintiff also relies on MRE 403, which permits the exclusion of even relevant evidence when the probative value of that evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Plaintif
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|