Hugener v. Michlap
| Decision Date | 11 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | 339,No. 1,Nos. 322,s. 322,1 |
| Citation | 2 Mich.App. 157,139 N.W.2d 132 |
| Parties | William A. HUGENER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marion F. MICHLAP, Defendant-Appellee. Alice M. HUGENER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marion F. MICHLAP, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
J. W. Hutson, Royal Oak, for William A. And Alice M. Hugener.
James R. Daoust, Rouse, Selby, Webber, Dickinson & Daoust, Detroit, for Marion F. Michlap.
Before LESINSKI, C. J., and FITZGERALD and GILLIS, JJ.
On December 25, 1960 Plaintiff Alice Hugener was a passenger in an automobile driven by her husband, plaintiff william Hugener, when it was struck from the rear by an automobile operated by defendant Marion Michlap.
Plaintiff Alice Hugener sued the defendant to recover for her personal injuries ahd her husband sued to recover for hospital, medical and other associated expenses and for the loss of consortium. The cases were consolidated for trial. The defendant admitted liability in both cases, but contested injury and damages, contending much of the expense was unrelated to this accident or unnecessary. The jury returned verdicts for plaintiff Alice Hugener in amount of $15,000.00 and for plaintiff William Hugener in amount of $1.05. Plaintiff William Hugener appeals contending the verdict is inadequate in his case, and the defendant appeals the verdict rendered in favor of Alice Hugener contending it is excessive. The appeals are consolidated in this Court.
Testimony in the wife's case showed that she spent some 12 days in the hospital and was under a physician's care for more than 3 years. The jury was the trier of the facts and we cannot say from this record that they erred in awarding $15,000.00 to the plaintiff-wife. See Teeter v. Pugsley (1947), 319 Mich. 508, 511, 29 A.2d 850. There was ample testimony, which was not controverted, to support a claim by the husband for out of pocket expenses, such as the $100 deductible collision expense. There is no question but that the jury erred by bringing in an inadequate award for the plaintiffhusband. In his argument to the jury at the conclusion of the case defense counsel stated, in part, in relation to the plaintiff-husband:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bosak v. Hutchinson
...v. Britton, 193 Mich. 174, 159 N.W. 150 (1916); Cooper v. Christensen, 29 Mich.App. 181, 185 N.W.2d 97 (1970); Hugener v. Michlap, 2 Mich.App. 157, 139 N.W.2d 132 (1966). The instant case differs, however, from those just cited in that here the amount of plaintiff's out-of-pocket expenses w......
-
Moore v. Spangler
...may be reinstated by the supreme court." Plaintiff cites Zielinski v. Harris, 289 Mich. 381, 286 N.W. 654 (1939); Hugener v. Michlap, 2 Mich.App. 157, 139 N.W.2d 132 (1966); Cooper v. Christensen, 29 Mich.App. 181, 185 N.W.2d 97 (1970); and Jackson v. Gregory, 32 Mich.App. 301, 188 N.W.2d 6......
-
Jackson v. Gregory
...and must be reversed: 'A jury award which ignores uncontroverted out-of-pocket expenses is inadequate on its face. Hugener v. Michlap (1966), 2 Mich.App. 157, 139 N.W.2d 132; Whitson v. Whiteley Poultry Co. (1968), 11 Mich.App. 598, 162 N.W.2d 102. So too, an award which ignores pain and su......
-
Cooper v. Christensen, Docket No. 8070
...damages at $2,081.61. 1 A jury award which ignores uncontroverted out-of-pocket expenses is inadequate on its face. Hugener v. Michlap (1966), 2 Mich.App. 157, 139 N.W.2d 132; Whitson v. Whiteley Poultry Co. (1968), 11 Mich.App. 598, 162 N.W.2d 102. So too, an award which ignores pain and s......