Turfe v. Intihar

• Decision Date: 24 January 1972
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 10253,1
• Citation: Turfe v. Intihar, 195 N.W.2d 773, 38 Mich.App. 144 (Mich. App. 1972)
• Parties: Fred TURFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas INTIHAR, Defendant-Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 773

195 N.W.2d 773

38 Mich.App. 144

Fred TURFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas INTIHAR, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 10253.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Jan. 24, 1972.

Released for Publication April 4, 1972.

Sheldon L. Miller, Lopatin, Miller, Bindes, Tanielian & Freedman, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant; Norman L. Zemke, Southfield, (of counsel).

Roy P. Nelson, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before LEVIN, P.J., and HOLBROOK and BRONSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Fred Turfe received a jury judgment for $818.50 against defendant, Thomas Intihar, in an automobile negligence action.

On appeal plaintiff raises the issue that the trial court abused its discretion by restricting plaintiff's rebuttal medical testimony. We find that the proffered rebuttal testimony could have been offered in plaintiff's main case.

It is the general rule that whether evidence which could have been offered before resting may be given in rebuttal is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. An examination of the record does not demonstrate any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. People v. Finister, 33 Mich.App. 283, 189 N.W.2d 835 (1971); Lexchin v. Mathews, 269 Mich. 120, 256 N.W. 825 (1934); People v. Utter, 217 Mich. 74, 185 N.W. 830 (1921); and Beebe v. Koshnic, 55 Mich. 604, 22 N.W. 59 (1885).

Affirmed.