From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cranson v. Eastman

Michigan Court of Appeals
Dec 7, 1970
184 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)

Opinion

Docket No. 8946.

Decided December 7, 1970. Leave to appeal denied February 11, 1971. 384 Mich. 806.

Appeal from Ingham, Sam Street Hughes, J. Submitted Division 2 November 12, 1970, at Lansing. (Docket No. 8946.) Decided December 7, 1970. Leave to appeal denied February 11, 1971. 384 Mich. 806.

Complaint by Evelyn Cranson and Wayne Cranson against Howard L. Eastman for damages for injuries incurred in an automobile accident. Verdict for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Sheffer, Bell Bennett, for plaintiffs.

Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis Foster (by Robert W. Townsend), for defendant.

Before: QUINN, P.J., and DANHOF and CARROLL, JJ.

Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.


Plaintiff Evelyn Cranson was a guest passenger in the automobile driven by her husband, plaintiff Wayne Cranson, which collided with the automobile driven by defendant. After a jury trial on the merits, a verdict of no cause of action by either plaintiff was returned in favor of defendant. Plaintiff Evelyn Cranson brought a motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence and the jury failed to follow the instructions given by the trial court. The motion for new trial was denied. Plaintiff assigns as error the denial of her motion for new trial.

A motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the great weight of the evidence is addressed to the trial judge's discretion, and on appeal is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Day v. Minor Walton Bean Company (1970), 22 Mich. App. 36. There was sufficient evidence in the trial record to support the jury's verdict that the defendant was without fault; therefore, it was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion to find that the verdict was not contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

Plaintiff asserts that the jury failed to follow the trial court's instruction as to not imputing negligence of the plaintiff-driver to the plaintiff-guest passenger. Plaintiff offers no proof of jury misconduct; and therefore, it must be assumed that the jury complied with the trial court's instruction. Shimel v. Interstate Motor Freight System (1966), 5 Mich. App. 143.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in its denial of the motion for new trial.

Affirmed with costs to defendant.


Summaries of

Cranson v. Eastman

Michigan Court of Appeals
Dec 7, 1970
184 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
Case details for

Cranson v. Eastman

Case Details

Full title:CRANSON v. EASTMAN

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 7, 1970

Citations

184 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
184 N.W.2d 480

Citing Cases

DeValerio v. Vic Tanny International

Finally, plaintiff argues that the jury's verdict was so contrary to the great weight of the evidence that…

Toth v. Yoder Co.

In any event, we see no substantial difference between the federal standard and the Michigan standard. In…