Jarecki v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 14 October 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 20448
• Citation: 237 N.W.2d 191,65 Mich.App. 78
• Parties: Stanley Philip JARECKI and Marie Jarecki, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 191

237 N.W.2d 191

65 Mich.App. 78

Stanley Philip JARECKI and Marie Jarecki, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 20448.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Oct. 14, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1975.

Released for Publication Jan. 22, 1976.

Alexander, Buchanan & Seavitt by James H. Finney, Detroit, for defendants-appellants.

Sheldon L. Miller, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and QUINN and T. M. BURNS, JJ.

T. M. BURNS, Judge.

This negligence action was instituted by Stanley Philip Jarecki against defendants Ford Motor Company and Richard A. Austin, Secretary of State, jointly and severally. The suit arose as a result of an automobile-pedestrian accident which took place on March 25, 1971, at about the hour of midnight Street in the city of Detroit. The plaintiff, Street in the city of detroit. The plaintiff, Stanley Jarecki, then a pedestrian, was struck by a motor vehicle, said vehicle continuing on its way after the accident without stopping. The accident occurred in the westbound lanes of Eight Mile Road at the location indicated.

Livonia Police Officer Danile Wilcox investigated the accident and over the objection of counsel for defendant Ford Motor Company, testified at trial that a witness, Angelo Ramaci, had indicated that the car involved in the accident was a full-sized Ford bearing a 1970 Michigan license number JZJ 411.

Sergeant Carl Larsen of the Livonia Police Department testified that after he learned of the ownership of the vehicle in question through a teletype from the Secretary of the State, he contacted Ford Motor Company in April of 1971 to check upon possession of the vehicle with the aforementioned license number. Larsen indicated that a Mr. Echlin of Ford Motor Company informed him that the vehicle in question had been sold a month before the accident. It was later discovered that this information was erroneous and that the vehicle, a Thunderbird, had not been sold, but rather had been leased by the Ford Motor Company to a Lewis Charles Veraldi. After leasing the car, Veraldi turned over complete possession and control to a close friend, Frank Zoline. The possession of the vehicle by Zoline was not in issue.

Angelo Ramaci, who was driving in a westerly direction on Eight Mile Road and was behind the impact when it occurred, was plaintiffs' major witness. He testified that after the accident he followed the car involved for a considerable distance and when it did not stop, he wrote down the license number on an owner's manual which he had in his 1966 Cadillac. He also testified that the vehicle which hit the plaintiff contained two white males between the ages of 35 and 45. A manual from a 1966 Cadillac, purporting to be the same manual upon which ramaci recorded the license number on the night of the accident, was produced at trial and introduced into evidence over the objection of counsel for defendant Ford Motor Company. Written in pencil on the front cover of the manual was the six-digit license number JZJ 411.

Whether the manual was the original manual and whether or not the handwriting thereon was that of witness Ramaci was in issue at trial. Ramaci testified that he could not identify the color (and thus the year) of the plate nor could he tell the state of origin of the plate. A stipulation was entered into at trial to the effect that at the time of this accident, twenty states were using the three letter and three digit license numbering system.

The accident occurred during a period of time in which license plates could have been either one year or the other. The person owning the 1971 license plate with the number JZJ 411 was Tony Julio, a 70-year old white male who was added to the case as a defendant about six or seven months before trial. Julio testified that he was not involved in the accident because he had been home in bed at that time. Frank Zoline, the 42-year old white male driver of the Ford-owned vehicle denied any involvement in the accident but admitted that he could not remember his exact whereabouts on the evening in question.

Trial began in Wayne County Circuit Court on October 31, 1973, and continued through November 8, 1973. On that date, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Stanley Jarecki in the amount of $234,000 and in favor of plaintiff Marie Jarecki in the amount of $17,000 against the Ford Motor Company only. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action against defendant Secretary of State. Earlier the trial court had granted defendant Julio's motion for a directed verdict while denying similar motions made by the Ford Motor Company and the Secretary of State.

Judgment on the verdict was entered on December 3, 1973. On February 8, 1974, the trial court denied defendant Ford Motor Company's motion for a new trial as to plaintiff Stanley Jarecki, but ordered that a new trial be granted as to plaintiff Marie Jarecki when plaintiff stipulated to same. Counsel for defendant Ford Motor Company objected as to the granting of a new trial on the Marie Jarecki case only. Orders conforming to the above rulings were entered on March 29, 1974. On May 10, 1974, an amended order denying defendant Ford Motor Company's motion for a new trial as to Stanley Jarecki and granting a new trial as to Marie Jarecki was entered. This appeal followed.

Defendant Ford Motor Company first claims that it was reversible error for the trial court to permit plaintiffs' counsel to refer to the fact that Ford Motor Company gave erroneous information to the police officer investigating this hit-and-run accident. On the other hand, plaintiffs argue that such statements were highly relevant to the issues involved in this case.

Where relevancy is in issue, the question we must decide is whether the evidence is sufficiently probative of a fact in issue to offset the prejudice that the evidence produces. A party may properly argue and introduce evidence relating to the opposing parties' attempts to suppress evidence or otherwise avoid the fair adjudication of a dispute. 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 179, p. 456; Long v. Earle, 277 Mich. 505, 269 N.W. 577 (1936). In the case at bar, as to the question of whether it was permissible for the plaintiffs to show that Ford Motor Company attempted to avoid the fair adjudication of a claim concerning a car owned by them by giving the police erroneous information, the trial court found that the evidence was probative of an issue in dispute and, therefore, admissible. The relevancy of proffered evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse has been shown. Wilhelm v. Detroit Edison Co., 56 Mich.App. 116, 143--144, 224 N.W.2d 289 (1974); Kujawski v. Cohen, 56 Mich.App. 533, 540, 224 N.W.2d 908 (1974). We find no abuse by the trial court in admitting this evidence.

Next defendant maintains that it was reversible error for the trial court to deny its motion for a mistrial.

In his opening statement, plaintiffs' counsel indicated to the jury that the liability of the Secretary of State was limited to $10,000, as that liability related to plaintiff Stanley Jarecki. ¹ The trial court charged the jury that if they found against the Secretary of State, their joint award for both Mr. and Mrs. Jarecki could not exceed $20,000. Defendant now claims that it was error to mention the Secretary of State's...