Henson v. Veteran's Cab Co. of Flint, 7

• Decision Date: 05 April 1971
• Docket Number: No. 7,7
• Citation: 384 Mich. 486,185 N.W.2d 383
• Parties: Gladys HENSON and Hubert Henson, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. VETERAN'S CAB COMPANY OF FLINT, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 383

185 N.W.2d 383

384 Mich. 486

Gladys HENSON and Hubert Henson, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. VETERAN'S CAB COMPANY OF FLINT, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 7.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 5, 1971.

Leitson, Dean, Dean, Segar & Hart, P.C., Flint by Clifford H. Hart, Flint, of counsel for plaintiffs-appellants.

Howard C. Fisher, Flint, for defendant-appellee.

Before the Entire Bench, except T. G. KAVANAGH, J.

BRENNAN, Justice.

In this automobile negligence case, plaintiffs recovered a verdict in the amount of $12,500, and defendant Cab Company sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, both of which were denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on the ground that the trial judge had improperly restricted defendant's cross-examination of plaintiff. The pertinent portion of the trial transcript is as follows:

'Q. Now, when you entered the hospital, you were asked a number of questions by the personnel of the hospital, were you not?

'A. Yes, yes.

'Q. And in answer to the questions, did you explain to the hospital attendants that you had suffered from chronic back pains ever since you were a child, and that this pain radiated up and down your spine?

'MR. ABRAM: All right. Okay, your Honor. I am going to ask that the jury be excused. I'm sorry.

'THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I think it's about time for a recess anyhow. Remember, don't talk about the case amongst yourselves ro anyone. We haven't heard all the evidence yet. So take a short recess, please.

'(Whereupon the jury retired to its quarters, and the following proceedings were held outside its presence and hearing.)

'MR. ABRAM: Your Honor, at this time, and despite the efforts and time that we have spent on this case, I'm going to move for a mistrial. I'm going to move for a mistrial for this reason: Mr. Fisher has a record there that he's been trying to get into the evidence, and improperly, during this whole trial. Dr. Gutow was on the stand and he asked Dr. Gutow if he made an entry--if he ever entered that. He said no. He could have shown it to him and then he could have explained it. He didn't do it. Now Mr. Fisher picks that record up and is reading from it like it was in evidence in front of the jury. I think that is improper evidence. The jury thinks it's part of the evidence.

'THE COURT: No, they don't, Mr. Abram. I can understand, and I do.

'And, Mr. Fisher, I am really surprised at you. Throughout this whole trial you have been pulling some grandstand plays. You have been in every way Attempting to put in things where I have repeatedly told you not to.

'However, this is the fourth day of the trial, and I'm going to take your motion under advisement.

'MR. ABRAM: Thank you.

'THE COURT: I think this is a terrible, terrible waste of the jury's time, of the lawyer's time and of this Court's to not permit this to go to the jury.

'But, Mr. Fisher, this is the last time, and the last time that I intend to permit you to do what you have been doing.

'MR. FISHER: If the Court please, I submit that this is cross-examination and I contend it's proper. I have asked a question--

'THE COURT: She doesn't know who wrote that or what they put down.

'Let me just ask you one question, Mrs. Henson. Was that paper ever shown to you by the person who took it down--

'THE WITNESS: No.

'THE COURT: All right.--so that you could make any corrections or additions?

'THE WITNESS: No.

'THE COURT: All right.

'MR. FISHER: Well, if the Court please, Naturally this paper couldn't be shown to her. This was--

'THE COURT: All right, Mr. Fisher, you get the person who took that down in here as a witness so that they can be properly cross-examined. Then you might be able to start Cross-examining Mrs. Henson on it. Now, that's the proper way of doing it. You get the person who actually wrote that down there so that it gives your opposition an opportunity to cross-examine that particular person. And then, when you have laid that foundation, then and only then can you then Question Mrs. Henson on it.

'We will take a short recess.

'(Short recess)

'Whereupon the following proceedings were resumed within the presence and hearing of the jury.)

'THE COURT: May I just inquire. You have one more witness, Mr. Henson; is that right, or how many?

'MR. ABRAM: Two more witnesses, your Honor.

'THE COURT: Oh, two more.

'MR. FISHER: No other questions.

'THE COURT: You may proceed,

'Mr.--

'MR. FISHER: No other questions, your Honor.

'MRS. McKENNA: I want to question.

'THE COURT: You may.

MRS. McKENNA: Thank you.

'THE COURT: You are through cross-examining, Mr. Fisher?

'MR. FISHER: Yes.

'THE COURT: All right.' (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiffs-appellant urge in this Court that the action of the trial judge in preventing defendant's counsel from cross-examining plaintiff in the manner attempted, if error, was not prejudicial, and that defendant had the obligation to seek and to make a separate record of the matter sought to be proven by the excluded cross-examination. Defendant points to Rule 604, GCR 1963, which provides as follows:

'If an objection to be a question propounded to a witness is sustained by the court, the examining attorney may make a specific offer of what he expects to prove by the answer of the witness, or by leave of court, may examine the witness in relation thereto. The court may require the offer to be made or the testimony taken out of the hearing of the jury. The court may add such other or further statement as clearly shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made and the ruling thereon.'

Defendant-appellee contends that Rule 604 does not apply to cross-examination, pointing out that the cross-examiner often does not know what the answer to his question will be, and it is, therefore, unreasonable to expect a cross-examiner to make a specific offer of what he expects to prove by the answer of the witness.

At common law, the party complaining of any ruling of the court on a matter of law or procedure during the process of the trial must take an exception thereto in order to secure the right to have the propriety of such ruling reviewed on appeal or writ of error. 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, § 272, pp. 47, 48. In Michigan, the need for formal exception to a court ruling was abolished by statute, C.L.1948, 618.60, which read as follows:

'Sec. 60. It shall not be necessary in the trial of any action or proceeding in any court of record, to except to any ruling or action of the court, if an objection thereto was duly made, but an exception shall be deemed to follow as a matter of course, and it shall not be necessary to except in any case to the charge of the court to the jury, or to the refusal of the court to charge as requested; but any party considering himself aggrieved by any such ruling, action, charge or refusal to charge, may assign errors the same as if exception had been made according to the practice heretofore in use.'

This statutory provision was repealed at the time of the adoption of the Revised Judicature Act in 1963. In its place, this Court adopted GCR 1963, 507.3, providing as follows:

'.5 Exceptions Unnecessary. Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary. It is sufficient that a party, at the time of (sic) the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take or his objection to the action of the court and his grounds therefor; and, if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of the objection does not thereafter prejudice him.'

Also bearing on the question is GCR 1963, 529.1. It provides:

'.1 Harmless Error. No error is either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceedings shall construe these rules to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action so as to avoid the consequences of any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.'

Reading these three rules together*, we conclude that a party seeking reversal of the trial court's order denying a new trial has the burden in the appellate court of showing (1) that the ruling was erroneous, (2) that he opposed the ruling and contended for a proper ruling, and (3) that the erroneous ruling was prejudicial, so that the denial of his request for a new trial would be inconsistent with substantial justice.

In the discharge of this responsibility, counsel are aided by the permissive provisions of Rule 604. Whether on direct or cross-examination, an offer of proof or a request to make a separate record will serve to show that counsel opposed the court's ruling and contended for a proper ruling. Where the record does not show that the error was prejudicial, the reviewing court will not presume prejudice. The burden is on the appellant to show prejudice.

The principles thus stated are not so easily applied to the case at hand. The question which defendant's attorney asked and which he claims he was not permitted to pursue was as follows:

'Q. (By Mr. Fisher) And in answer to the questions, did you explain to the hospital attendants that you had suffered from chronic back pains ever since you were a child, and that this pain radiated up and down your spine?'

Plaintiff had alleged as damages that she suffered an injury to her back. The nature and extent of her pre-existing back problems, if any, were certainly in issue, and there could be no question of counsel's right to inquire into her prior history or...