 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayton v. McLachlan12/17/2002
UNPUBLISHED
In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff, Anthony Hayton, the personal representative of David Hayton ("Hayton"), appeals as of right from the judgment of no cause of action entered following a jury trial, and from the trial court's order denying his motion for a new trial and/or for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). We affirm.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for a new trial. Specifically, plaintiff contends that a new trial is required because a juror committed misconduct. On appeal, a trial court's decision whether to grant a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Kelly v Builders Square, Inc, 465 Mich 29, 34; 632 NW2d 912 (2001). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
Plaintiff contends that he should receive a new trial because juror Kurt Isbill lied during voir dire about his relationship with plaintiff's attorney, Christopher Pencak. According to plaintiff's undocumented assertions, Pencak previously represented Isbill in 1996 on a felony case (though not to completion) and refused to handle a civil matter for Isbill during that same time. Plaintiff claims that Isbill committed misconduct by not disclosing this prior relationship with Pencak during voir dire.
In Bynum v The ESAB Group, Inc, 467 Mich 280, 283; 651 NW2d 383 (2002), our Supreme Court reiterated the long-standing rules in regard to juror misconduct:
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 challenge for cause under MCR 2.511(D). . . .
In Citizens Commercial & Sav Bk v Engberg, 15 Mich App 438, 439-440; 166 NW2d 661 (1968), this Court noted the general proposition that " here is no question that a litigant is entitled to a truthful answer from a perspective juror during his voir dire examination." However, this Court later stated that, "upon discovery of a juror's false statements after a trial and verdict, a moving party must present to the court something more than the mere fact of the falsity of the answers." Id. at 440. More specifically, we held that " here must either be a showing of actual prejudice or it must be established to the satisfaction of the trial court that the moving party would have successfully challenged for cause or otherwise dismissed the juror in question had the truth been revealed prior to trial." Id. In addition, courts must be mindful that it is "the duty of counsel to ferret out potential bases for excusing jurors." Bynum, supra, 467 Mich at 284.
Although plaintiff's counsel contends that he did not recognize Isbill in the jury panel until Isbill read the verdict in favor of defendants with a vengeful smirk on his face, we question Pencak's timing in his recognition of Isbill as a former client. Indeed, plaintiff's reasoning would create an appellate parachute of sorts by allowing plaintiff's counsel to harbor the potential for error until such time as it advantaged his client's case. See People v Shuler, 188 Mich App 548, 552; 470 NW2d 492 (1991). In addition, accepting as true Pencak's representation that he did not notice Isbill until the rendering of the verdict, we cannot assume that Isbill in fact remembered Pencak when Pencak claims not to have recognized Isbill. Furthermore,
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|