Williams v. Wheels, Inc.
Decision Date | 27 December 1979 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 63207 |
Citation | 407 Mich. 417,286 N.W.2d 239 |
Parties | Lisa Lynn WILLIAMS, by her next friend, Jeannine Marie Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHEELS, INC., a corporation and Laurie Sue Lougheed, an individual, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Clancey & Price, P.C., Traverse City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan by Kenneth L. Block, Grand Rapids, for defendants-appellees.
The question posed for review in the instant matter is whether, in this action for damages brought pursuant to the no-fault act, 1 the defense attorney's remarks in closing argument concerning the impact of this case upon the continued viability of the no-fault scheme in Michigan were improper and served to deny the plaintiff a fair trial. We answer that question in the affirmative.
On September 3, 1976, the plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by defendant Laurie Sue Lougheed. The car was owned by defendant Wheels, Inc. There was a collision with another vehicle as a result of which the plaintiff suffered injuries including cerebral concussion, fractured pelvis, and multiple lacerations.
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants claiming that she was entitled to damages inasmuch as she had suffered injuries resulting in disfigurement and serious impairment of bodily function. 2 The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
The plaintiff pursued an appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.
A major theme which was emphasized by defense counsel in his closing argument to the jury was his version of what the Legislature intended by the no-fault legislation and what, in his opinion, was necessary for the sustained viability of this system. The following excerpt from defense counsel's closing argument is illustrative:
And further:
Plaintiff's attorney objected to defense counsel's remarks at this point and the trial court cautioned defense counsel. Nevertheless, defense counsel continued:
"I guess what I am saying to you is this, is that what you do in this case makes a great deal of difference as to how this no-fault statute is going to work, and I guess I don't want you to think that just because you are a jury in Leelanau County involving (Sic ) this case, that your decision may not be important to us lawyers and judges as to what juries do with cases of this kind and that is really the point I am trying to make."
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that defense counsel's remarks concerning the no-fault legislation and the duty of the jury were improper and constituted reversible error. The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff's arguments and took plaintiff to task for failing to cite any authority for this proposition, citing Mitcham v. Detroit, 355 Mich. 182, 94 N.W.2d 388 (1959).
We conclude that the remarks set forth served to deny the plaintiff a fair trial. The issue for the jury's consideration in this case was not the continued viability of the no-fault legislation. The only issue for determination by the jury in this case was whether the plaintiff had suffered the type of injury for which noneconomic damages could be recovered. We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that defense counsel's remarks were a simple admonition to the jury to follow the law. We believe that defense counsel's remarks may well have influenced the jury to decide this matter on the basis of considerations not germane to the issue which was presented to them.
Moreover, we do not believe that the plaintiff should be faulted for her failure to cite authority for her position in this regard. The nature of the plaintiff's argument on appeal was that the remarks made by defense counsel denied her a fair trial. We see no reason, given this type of argument, to preclude a finding of error because of the lack of cited authority.
Our disposition of this allegation of error makes it unnecessary to reach the other points raised by the plaintiff in her application for leave to appeal.
Accordingly, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and of the Leelanau Circuit Court and remand the matter to the Leelanau Circuit Court for a new trial. Costs to plaintiff.
We agree with the majority's conclusion that the defense attorney's remarks concerning the possible impact that this jury's verdict might have upon the future of the no-fault scheme interjected irrelevant considerations into the trial and were improper. 1 However, the remarks were no so prejudicial as to deny plaintiff a fair trial.
The control...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schaible v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.
...the issue of mental anguish on the basis of considerations not germane to the issues presented to them. See Williams v. Wheels, Inc., 407 Mich. 417, 286 N.W.2d 239 (1979), reh. den. 407 Mich. 1165 (1980). However, since we have vacated the jury's award for damages for mental anguish, we nee......
-
Falconer v. Salliotte, Docket No. 47339
...from diverting the jury from the issues in the case and appealing to its passion and prejudices in argument. Williams v. Wheels, Inc., 407 Mich. 417, 286 N.W.2d 239 (1979), Wayne County Board of Road Comm'rs v. GLS LeasCo., 394 Mich. 126, 229 N.W.2d 797 (1975). In particular, counsel overst......