 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Masten v. Roberts8/16/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Hood and R. S. Gribbs, JJ.
In this personal injury action, defendant Doyle B. Roberts appeals as of right the jury verdict for plaintiff Timothy Masten. Plaintiff Timothy Masten's vehicle collided with a tractor trailer driven by defendant Doyle B. Roberts (defendant) in the course of his employment by defendant Kaleel Brothers, Inc. The collision occurred in an intersection. Accident reconstruction experts differed regarding fault, and medical experts differed regarding the extent of plaintiff's injuries. The jury found that defendant was negligent, and that plaintiff suffered a post traumatic stress disorder, non-displaced fractures and a separated shoulder as a result of defendant's negligence. The jury also found that plaintiff did not have a mild traumatic brain injury and that, although he had Peyronie's disease, it had not been caused by the accident. The jury also found that plaintiff was 45% comparatively negligent. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On appeal, defendants argue that the trial court erred when it refused to add the comment section of SJI2d 12.02 to the jury instruction. The trial court gave the requested instructions from Standard Jury Instructions [SJI2d] 12.01 and 12.02 verbatim, but did not read the "comment" section from SJI2d as part of the instructions. Defendants wanted the trial court to read the jury portions of the comment from SJI2d 12.02, which relates the five categories of excused violations found in 2 Restatement Torts, 2nd, ยง 288 A, pp 32-33, one of which is "an emergency not due to his own misconduct." Defendants presents no authority regarding a trial court's decision whether to read the commentary section to a jury instruction. Moreover, as the trial court said, the evidence did not support a special instruction on emergency. Indeed, defendant Roberts was specifically asked on more than one occasion whether the SUV entering his lane created an emergency situation -- defendant replied that the SUV entering his lane was not an emergency, that he had no trouble moving his truck over to the other lane, and that he did not slam on his brakes, take evasive action, or swerve off the road. He was able to safely change lanes. He simply did not believe that he could stop safely for the changing light. Although defendant's characterization as "emergency" was neither supported by the evidence or detailed in the jury instruction, defendant's claim that he could not safely stop at the yellow light, and an instruction that the inability to safely stop was a defense, were before the jury. The jury was instructed that, if it believed that defense, it should find that any violation of the statute was excused. Defendants were not denied a fair trial because of an instructional error. Ward v Consolidated Rail Corp, 472 Mich 77, 83; 693 NW2d 366 (2005).
Defendants also argue that juror Cook should have been dismissed for cause. "A venireman is presumed to be qualified and the party challenging a venireman carries the burden of showing disqualification for cause." Vandette v Toffolo, 29 Mich App 185, 189; 185 NW2d 130 (1970). A party is entitled to nothing more than an impartial jury, "and when he has obtained that he has no valid ground for complaint." Cocora v GMC, 161 Mich App 92, 96; 409 NW2d 736 (1987). Here, juror Cook denied any bias and said she could be a fair juror. There was nothing in the record to indicate that juror Cook's opinion about expert witnesses would prevent her from rendering a fair verdict, there was no evidence that juror Cook had ever been an adverse party to either defendants or their law firm, and there was no evide
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.
|
|