Sutzer v. Allen, 142.
Decision Date | 22 July 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 142.,142. |
Citation | 236 Mich. 1,209 N.W. 918 |
Parties | SUTZER v. ALLEN et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Washtenaw County; George W. Sample, Judge.
Action by Cora Sutzer against Albert T. Allen and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Court.
Walter Schweikart, of Detroit, for appellants.
Frank B. De Vine, of Ann Arbor, for appellee.
Plaintiff sued defendants to recover her damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision in the city of Ann Arbor. Plaintiff was riding in a taxicab. Defendants were riding in their automobile. They collided with the taxicab by reason of getting on the wrong side of the street. Plaintiff received, at the hands of the jury, $2,000. She remitted $500 because, as the record states, she sued for only $1,500. Defendants raise the following questions: (1) Did the comment of plaintiff's counsel in his argument to the jury, concerning the fact that defendant was insured, constitute prejudicial error? (2) Did the court err in not directing a verdict for the defendants at the close of the plaintiff's case because there was no identification of the parties nor proof of ownership of the automobile? (3) Was the verdict of the jury excessive?
1. Defendants state their objection on this question in the following manner:
‘During the opening argument to the jury, Mr. De Vine, counsel for the plaintiff, suddenly bursted into an uproar of oratorical dramatism, exclaiming in a most passionate and vindictive tone of voice: ‘You don't hear him denying saying I am insured in the insurance company and the company will settle for it.’
Plaintiff justifies his comment on the ground that what he said was a part of the evidence. Russell E. Jordan, the taxicab driver, and a witness for plaintiff, testified, in part, as follows:
The trial court instructed the jury as to this incident as follows:
In view of the objectionable language being a part of the testimony, and the statement by the court as to the use which should be made of it by the jury, we think no prejudice resulted to defendants. It has now become common knowledge that people owning automobiles have them insured, and, because that fact in a particular case reaches the ears of the jury during the trial, it is no longer reversible error unless and improper use is made of it by counsel for the evident purpose of inflaming the passions of the jury and thereby increasing the size of the verdict. Ward v. De Young, 210 Mich. 67, 177 N. W. 213.
2. Were the parties properly indentified and proof made of the ownership of the automobile? We think the record fairly discloses that the automobile in which defendants were riding belonged to the father, and that the son...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Easton v. Medema
...Mich. 469, 184 N. W. 469;Reynolds v. Knowles, 223 Mich. 71, 193 N. W. 900;Stowe v. Mather, 234 Mich. 385, 208 N. W. 609;Sutzer v. Allen, 236 Mich. 1, 209 N. W. 918;Oliver v. Ashworth, 239 Mich. 53, 214 N. W. 85;Johnson v. Mutual Savings Association, 242 Mich. 558, 219 N. W. 736. 3. Plaintif......
-
Crenshaw v. Goza
...for purposes other than to inflame the passions of the jury. Morris v. Montgomery, 229 Mich. 509, 201 N.W. 496 (1924); Sutzer v. Allen, 236 Mich. 1, 209 N.W. 918 (1926); White v. Makela, 304 Mich. 425, 8 N.W.2d 123 (1943); Watroba v. Detroit, 334 Mich. 182, 54 N.W.2d 212 (1952); Broitman v.......
-
Marth v. Lambert
...200 Mich. 308, 166 N.W. 884;Church v. Stoldt, 215 Mich. 469, 184 N.W. 469;Greenwold v. Faber, 234 Mich. 217, 207 N.W. 911;Sutzer v. Allen, 236 Mich. 1, 209 N.W. 918;Oliver v. Ashworth, 239 Mich. 53, 214 N.W. 85;Holloway v. Nassar, 276 Mich. 212, 267 N.W. 619. In the case at bar, counsel for......
-
Vaas v. Schrotenboer
...not deprive plaintiff of a fair trial. We find no error in the incidents where insurance was referred to at the trial. See Sutzer v. Allen, 236 Mich. 1, 209 N.W. 918; Stehouwer v. Lewis, 249 Mich. 76, 227 N.W. 759, 74 A.L.R. 844; Deffenbaugh v. Inter-State Motor Freight Corporation, 254 Mic......