Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co.

13 Citing cases

  1. Palenkas v. Beaumont Hosp

    432 Mich. 527 (Mich. 1989)   Cited 101 times
    Allowing the consideration of "whether the amount actually awarded is comparable to awards in similar cases within the state and in other jurisdictions"

    A court should be reluctant to disturb a jury verdict for personal injuries upon the ground that the amount is excessive. McKay v Hargis, 351 Mich. 409, 419; 88 N.W.2d 456 (1958); Gibbons v Delta Contracting Co, 301 Mich. 638, 653; 4 N.W.2d 39 (1942). In evaluating a jury verdict for possible remittitur, a court should review the verdict in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

  2. Troyanowski v. Kent City

    175 Mich. App. 217 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 18 times
    In Troyanowski v Kent City, 175 Mich App 217, 222; 437 NW2d 266 (1988), the plaintiff called a witness to testify that alluded to another witness that plaintiff failed to call.

    Indeed, within the Barringer opinion the Supreme Court made it clear that comment by counsel on the failure of a party to call a witness, regardless of who controls the witness, is not forbidden. Barringer, supra, p 604, quoting Gibbons v Delta Contracting Co, 301 Mich. 638 ; 4 N.W.2d 39 (1942). More recently, in Reetz v Kinsman Marine Transit Co, 416 Mich. 97; 330 N.W.2d 638 (1982), the Supreme Court cited Barringer in noting that when a witness is available to either party, counsel may still point out that the opposing party did not call the witness and that the jury may draw an inference against that party.

  3. Cavanaugh v. Cardamone

    147 Mich. App. 159 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    That presumption does not operate; however, in the case of a witness, who is equally available or accessible to both parties by process of the court. See generally Barringer v Arnold, 358 Mich. 594; 101 N.W.2d 365 (1960); Gibbons v Delta Contracting Co, 301 Mich. 638; 4 N.W.2d 39 (1942). Affirmed.

  4. Barringer v. Arnold

    358 Mich. 594 (Mich. 1960)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that a party's failure to produce noncumulative evidence within his control raises the presumption that, if produced, the evidence would operate against him

    See, also, Macklem v. Warren Construction Company, 343 Mich. 334, 338. In Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638, the action was brought to recover damages resulting from a collision between plaintiff's automobile and defendant's truck. At the time of the collision one Louis Dain was riding in the truck with the driver.

  5. Johnson v. Miller

    100 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    The question of damages rests in the sound judgment of the trier of facts, and this Court will not reverse the jury's finding unless the Court's conscience is shocked by the award. See Cawood v. Earl Paige Co., 239 Mich. 485; Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638; Kurta v. Probelske, 324 Mich. 179; Samuelson v. Olson Transportation Co., 324 Mich. 278. We do not conclude that the jury erred in determining damages in this case.

  6. Macklem v. Warren Construction Co.

    72 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. 1955)   Cited 9 times

    Plaintiff cites us to the rule that failure to produce evidence within a party's control raises a presumption or inference that if produced it would operate against him. See e.g., Brandt v. C.F. Smith Co., 242 Mich. 217; Leeds v. Masha, 328 Mich. 137; Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638; Griggs v. Saginaw Flint Railway Co., 196 Mich. 258. However, we have also stated in Cole v. Lake Shore Michigan Southern R. Co., 81 Mich. 156, 161, 162:

  7. Samuelson v. Olson Transp. Co.

    36 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. 1949)   Cited 9 times

    " This language was cited with approval in Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638, and in Alley v. Klotz, 320 Mich. 521. See, also, Retan v. Railway Co., 94 Mich. 146; In re Clark's Estate, 234 Mich. 471.

  8. Kurta v. Probelske

    324 Mich. 179 (Mich. 1949)   Cited 15 times
    In Kurta v Probelske, 324 Mich. 179, 188; 36 N.W.2d 889 (1949), the Court rejected defendant's claim that the damages awarded were excessive and said that plaintiff's receipt of unemployment benefits did not serve to mitigate his damages.

    This doctor testified plaintiff had concussion of the brain and various other physical injuries. In Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638, at page 653, quoting from Cleven v. Griffin, 298 Mich. 139, 141, we said: "`There is no absolute standard by which we can measure the amount of damages in personal injury cases.

  9. Alley v. Klotz

    31 N.W.2d 816 (Mich. 1948)   Cited 18 times

    Under the testimony in this case the trial court was not in error in submitting the issues of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury. Tuttle v. Railway Co., 193 Mich. 390; Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638; McGrath v. Hargraves, 310 Mich. 510. There was substantial evidence to support the finding of the jury, and in consequence it should not be disturbed on the ground that it was against the great weight of the evidence. Major v. Southwestern Motor Sales, Inc., 314 Mich. 122; Werker v. McGrain, 315 Mich. 287.

  10. Trafamczak v. Anys

    31 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. 1948)   Cited 10 times
    In Trafamczak v. Anys, 320 Mich. 653, a deputy sheriff to whom the defendant had made the statutory report was permitted to read therefrom, in answer to questions propounded to him, that defendant had admitted falling asleep immediately prior to the accident.

    The awarding of damages for pain and suffering rested in the sound judgment and discretion of the jury. It cannot be said on this record that such discretion was abused, or that the size of the verdict indicates that the jury was in any way improperly influenced in returning it. Cleven v. Giffin, 298 Mich. 139; Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638. For the reasons indicated, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.