Tiffany v. Christman Co.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | 77-4234,Docket Nos. 77-4233 |
| Citation | 287 N.W.2d 199,93 Mich.App. 267 |
| Parties | Hugh TIFFANY and Pauline Tiffany, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Citizens Insurance Company of America, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The CHRISTMAN COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant-Appellee. DAVERMAN ASSOCIATES, INC., a corporation, Defendant/Third-Party Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BATTLE CREEK STEEL FABRICATING COMPANY, a corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee (two-cases). William T. LEWIS and Shirley Lewis, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Citizens Insurance Company of America, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTMAN COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant-Appellee. 93 Mich.App. 267, 287 N.W.2d 199 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[93 MICHAPP 274] Webb A. [93 MICHAPP 275] Smith, Lansing, for appellant.
[93 MICHAPP 274] Harvey E. VanBenschoten, Saginaw, for William Lewis, Hugh Tiffany.
Richard R. Weiser, East Lansing, for Citizens Ins. Co. of America.
[93 MICHAPP 275] J. Michael Fordney, Saginaw, for Christman Co.
Lance R. Mather, Grand Rapids, for Battle Creek Steel Fabricating Co.
Before CYNAR, P. J., and J. H. GILLIS and NORMAN A. BAGULEY, * JJ.
Defendant Daverman Associates, Inc., (hereinafter Daverman) appeals as of right from an Ingham County jury verdict awarding plaintiffs a total of $830,000 damages as a result of defendant Daverman's negligence.
The action arises out of a June 19, 1972, accident which occurred during the erection of the steel framework of Central Michigan University's athletic center building. At the time, plaintiffs William Lewis and Hugh Tiffany were attempting to connect a horizontal steel beam to a vertical steel column. Another horizontal beam had previously been connected to the opposite side of the column and plaintiffs were attempting to connect the other beam by what is known as a "double connection". With such a connection, common bolts are used to hold two beams to a single column. When one beam has already been bolted to the column, as here, it is thus necessary to remove the nuts from the bolts in order to attach the second beam. While the nuts are removed, the first beam is connected to the column only by means of the threads on the bolts.
At the time they were attempting to make such [93 MICHAPP 276] a double connection, plaintiffs were 43 feet above the building's concrete floor. Plaintiff Tiffany was sitting atop the beam that had already been attached and plaintiff Lewis was sitting on a joist near the connection. The beam to be attached was lifted to the connection by means of a crane and was held in position by Lewis, while Tiffany removed the nuts from the bolts holding the other beam to the column. When Tiffany removed the nuts, the beam that had been attached began to separate from the column. That beam bent toward the ground causing Tiffany to fall to the ground. Plaintiff Lewis at first grabbed the other beam, but he too fell to the ground. Both plaintiffs suffered serious personal injury as a result of this accident.
In August and September 1973 the two injured workers filed suits against the general contractor for the project, The Christman Company (hereinafter Christman), alleging various claims of negligence in connection with the accident. Christman denied liability and on September 19, 1974, it filed a third-party complaint against the fabricator of the steel beams, Battle Creek Steel Fabricating Company, which was also plaintiffs' employer, seeking indemnification should it be held liable. Subsequently Christman filed a similar third-party complaint against Daverman, the architect on the project.
Subsequently, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaints against Christman. The amended complaints added the parties' wives as plaintiffs in claims for loss of consortium. Citizens Insurance Company of America, which had been paying worker's compensation benefits as a result of plaintiffs' injuries, was permitted to intervene and joined in the amended complaints.
On March 28, 1975, plaintiffs filed complaints [93 MICHAPP 277] against Daverman, which up to that time had been in the case only as a third-party defendant. These complaints alleged that Daverman was negligent in the manner in which it had prepared the plans for the project. They further alleged that Daverman negligently designed the connection and negligently supervised the project. Claims of gross negligence and liability for injuries arising out of inherently dangerous work were included in this complaint.
Daverman denied liability and subsequently brought third-party claims against both Christman and Battle Creek Steel. Both of these third-party actions were for contractual indemnification, while the complaint against Battle Creek Steel also alleged a right to common-law indemnification.
On May 6, 1977, Daverman, by leave of court, also filed a third-party complaint against Sofyanos, Brown and Associates, (hereinafter Sofyanos) seeking indemnification should it be held liable. Daverman alleged that Sofyanos, as a subcontractor of Battle Creek Steel, had negligently prepared shop drawings detailing the connection between the beams and the column. One week later, on May 13, 1977, Daverman filed a motion to adjourn the trial. In support of this motion Daverman noted that S. John Sofyanos, the principal of Sofyanos, was in Greece and would not be returning to the United States for another month or two. At this time, trial had been scheduled for May 24, 1977. Plaintiffs opposed this motion and filed a motion to sever Daverman's claim against Sofyanos from the principal action. On May 18, 1977, Daverman's motion was denied and plaintiffs' motion to sever was granted.
Prior to trial, Christman and Battle Creek Steel filed a stipulation with the court to dismiss with [93 MICHAPP 278] prejudice Christman's third-party complaint against Battle Creek Steel, the two parties having come to a settlement regarding their potential liability. Also prior to trial, the trial judge granted plaintiffs' motion In limine to preclude any of the defendants from bringing to the jury's attention the injured workers' entitlement to worker's compensation benefits.
Trial commenced on May 24, 1977, and continued for approximately three weeks. Testimony at trial tended to establish that:
1) the steel column had been designed in such a way that its "slenderness ratio", or tendency to bend, exceeded the maximum ratio set forth in the manual published by the American Institute of Steel Construction;
2) that connection methods other than the double connection technique are usually used above fifteen feet from the ground;
(3) that Daverman had altered drawings submitted by Battle Creek Steel to require a double connection;
4) that Daverman knew a prior accident almost identical to plaintiffs' had occurred six weeks before plaintiffs' accident and that no remedial measures were undertaken; and
5) that Daverman's contract with the State of Michigan stated that Daverman was to "supervise and coordinate at the site the work of the several contractors".
At the conclusion of the trial the trial judge granted Battle Creek Steel's motion for a directed verdict on Daverman's third-party claim for common-law indemnification. All the other claims were presented to the jury. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action in all the claims except plaintiffs' claims against Daverman. The jury found Daverman liable for the following damages[93 MICHAPP 279] : $430,000 to Hugh Tiffany; $50,000 to Pauline Tiffany; $310,000 to William Lewis; and $40,000 to Shirley Lewis. The motion for a new trial being denied, Daverman now brings this appeal, raising 20 issues to be considered.
In order to establish future loss of earning capacity as an element of damages, plaintiffs called as a witness Dr. John P. Henderson, a professor of economics at Michigan State University. This witness, over objection, computed future wage loss by employing a six percent annual wage increase rate. This figure was based upon the witness's study of wage increases in the workers' union local and took into account an annual wage increase of three and one-half percent to reflect inflation and an additional two and one-half percent annual productivity wage increase. The injured workers' projected future wage losses were then computed, using their expected work lives and the estimated earnings for each year, and this result was discounted to reflect the present value of the future lost earnings. The witness also adjusted plaintiff William Lewis's lost earnings to reflect the fact that he could mitigate his losses by operating a cabin and boat rental operation.
Daverman contends that this evidence was improperly admitted. It claims that the expert's conclusions were based upon inadmissible hearsay which was not in evidence, that the expert improperly considered inflation in his computations and that overall the testimony was so speculative that it should have been stricken.
We find no error in the admission of the expert's evidence. There exists no per se rule barring expert witnesses from relying upon hearsay or other nonrecord evidence in reaching their conclusions. [93 MICHAPP 280] Neither GCR 1963, 605, 1 which was in effect at the time of the trial, nor the present rule, MRE 703, 2 requires the data underlying an expert's opinion to be admitted or admissible in evidence. Rather, such a requirement is left to the trial judge's discretion. In light of the fact that Daverman had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness concerning the data underlying his conclusions, we find no abuse of discretion in the instant case.
Similarly, we conclude that no reversible error occurred when the expert considered inflation as a factor when computing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diggs v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc.
...over forty years used as the basis of an award where he had been wrongfully discharged because of a handicap); Tiffany v. Christman Co., 93 Mich.App. 267, 287 N.W.2d 199 (1979) (future income computation based on testimony that average annual wage increase in field was 6% held We are bound ......
-
Wilson v. Beebe
...the five percent reduction rate after the statutory rate had been raised from five to six percent. See Tiffany v. The Christman Co., 93 Mich.App. 267, 287-88, 287 N.W.2d 199 (1979). Other panels of the Michigan Court of Appeals have approved the five percent rate of reduction since the stat......
-
Hardy v. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc.
...Inc., 102 Mich.App. 68; 300 N.W.2d 737 (1980); Peeples v. Detroit, 99 Mich.App. 285, 297 N.W.2d 839 (1980); Tiffany v. Christman Co., 93 Mich.App. 267, 287 N.W.2d 199 (1979); and Darin & Armstrong v. Ben Agree Co., 88 Mich.App. 128, 276 N.W.2d 869 (1979). Contra, see Nanasi v. General Motor......
-
Bosak v. Hutchinson
...future rate of inflation. While the existence of inflation may have become 'a fact of present-day life,' Tiffany [v. The Christman Co., 93 Mich.App. 267, 280, 287 N.W.2d 199 (1979) ], the existence and rate of inflation in the future is simply not a matter of which a trial court may take ju......