Masters v. City of Highland Park
| Decision Date | 22 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 43815 |
| Parties | Bruno M. MASTERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, a Municipal Corporation, Civil Service Board of the Cityof Highland Park, and Highland Park General Hospital, Defendants-Appellants. 97 Mich.App. 56, 294 N.W.2d 246 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[97 MICHAPP 57] Lester D. Hudson, Detroit, for defendants-appellants.
Murdoch J. Hertzog, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
[97 MICHAPP 58] Before BRONSON, P. J., and BEASLEY and RILEY, JJ.
On December 8, 1972, the plaintiff, Bruno M. Masters, filed suit against the City of Highland Park, the Civil Service Board of the City of Highland Park and Highland Park General Hospital, alleging that his discharge, after 22 years of service with the Highland Park Hospital maintenance department, was wrongful. He had been discharged for alleged noncompliance with the city's residence requirements. The discharge was first upheld by the Highland Park Civil Service Commission and then by the Wayne County Circuit Court in an order dated December 26, 1975. This Court reversed and ordered the plaintiff reinstated with accrued back wages. Masters v. Highland Park, 79 Mich.App. 77, 261 N.W.2d 215 (1977), aff'd and , 402 Mich. 907 (1978). The Michigan Supreme Court's order of affirmance remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of the amount of back pay to be awarded to the plaintiff. This order gave the defendants an opportunity to establish that the plaintiff had not properly mitigated his damages.
On August 25, 1978, plaintiff was deposed by the defendants regarding his income and attempts to find employment following discharge. The defendants submitted a set of interrogatories to plaintiff on December 13, 1978, which were not answered. On December 28, 1978, the plaintiff moved for entry of judgment. The city objected to any entry of a judgment based on the plaintiff's failure to respond to the interrogatories and it's own desire to depose the former personnel director of Highland Park. On February 2, 1979, the trial court rejected defendants' arguments and rendered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $242,281.91. [97 MICHAPP 59] The city now appeals claiming that the trial court reversibly erred by not allowing them to adequately explore the mitigation of damages issue.
Discovery was designed to clarify the factual and legal questions to be litigated at trial. Through this mechanism, complete and honest disclosure of the underlying issues can occur, preventing surprise at trial. Klabunde v. Stanley, 16 Mich.App. 490, 493, 168 N.W.2d 450 (1969), rev'd on other grounds, 384 Mich. 276, 181 N.W.2d 918 (1970). To this end, the discovery rules are to be liberally construed. Daniels v. Allen Industries, Inc., 391 Mich. 398, 403, 216 N.W.2d 762 (1974). However, these disclosure considerations must be balanced against the necessity for expeditious disposition of litigation. Klabunde v. Stanley, 384 Mich. 276, 282, 181 N.W.2d 918 (1970). It is up to the trial judge to balance these ofttimes competing concerns so as to ensure both parties' right to a fair trial.
Defendants objected to the entry of judgment prior to answers being submitted on the December interrogatories. Despite the ready mechanism available under GCR 1963, 313.1, defendants failed to move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. See Omlie Industries, Inc. v. Industro Motive Corp., 77 Mich.App. 48, 50-51, 257 N.W.2d 677 (1977). We believe that their failure constituted a waiver and we will not review defendants' claim absent manifest injustice.
Determining the relevancy of interrogatories is a decision within a trial judge's discretion which will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Marchand v. Henry Ford Hospital, 398 Mich. 163, 169-170, 247 N.W.2d 280 (1976), Walker Metallurgical Corp. v. Ledoux & Co., 16 Mich.App. 588, 590, 168 N.W.2d 474 (1969). We agree with the trial judge that most of defendants' interrogatories [97 MICHAPP 60] had either already been answered at plaintiff's deposition or were irrelevant to the mitigation issue. Since most of the questions were of this nature, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maerz v. U.S. Steel Corp.
...Id., 163, 165 N.W.2d 450. The granting or denial of discovery is within the trial judge's discretion. Masters v. City of Highland Park, 97 Mich.App. 56, 59, 294 N.W.2d 246 (1980). However, we can find no justification for the granting of the protective order prohibiting inquiry by interroga......
-
Curylo v. Curylo, Docket No. 51263
...to answer a request for admissions on appeal where the issue has never been presented to the trial court), Masters v. City of Highland Park, 97 Mich.App. 56, 294 N.W.2d 246 (1980), lv. den. 409 Mich. 937 (1980) (a party cannot lay back for a [104 MICHAPP 347] period of 10 months after the e......
-
Bowen v. Nelson Credit Centers, Inc.
...if there is an abuse of discretion. Marchand v. Henry Ford Hospital, 398 Mich. 163, 247 N.W.2d 280 (1976); Masters v. City of Highland Park, 97 Mich.App. 56, 59, 294 N.W.2d 246 (1980), lv. den. 409 Mich. 937 We find that the trial court in this case abused its discretion in denying plaintif......
-
McDonald Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Docket No. 84041
...the parties should also be considered. Dafter Twp., supra, 159 Mich.App. at p. 159, 406 N.W.2d 255 quoting Masters v. City of Highland Park, 97 Mich.App. 56, 60, 294 N.W.2d 246 (1980), lv. den. 409 Mich. 937 (1980). Here, plaintiff's request for discovery was first made during the course of......