"However, the trial court's determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Hill v Hoig, 258 Mich App 538, 540; 672 NW2d 531 (2003). "Instructional error warrants reversal if the error resulted in such unfair prejudice to the complaining party that the failure to vacate the jury verdict would be inconsistent with substantial justice."

However, this Court reviews for an abuse of discretion "the trial court's determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case[.]" Hill v Hoig, 258 Mich App 538, 540; 672 NW2d 531 (2003). "Instructional error warrants reversal if the error resulted in such unfair prejudice to the complaining party that the failure to vacate the jury verdict would be inconsistent with substantial justice."

People v Traver, 502 Mich 23, 31; 917 NW2d 260 (2018). A trial court's determination that a jury instruction is applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hill v Hoig, 258 Mich App 538, 540; 672 NW2d 531 (2003). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes."

I write separately because I disagree that this entitles respondents to a jury instruction on MCL 722.634. I believe that the applicability of that instruction to this case remains in the trial court's discretion. See Hill v Hoig, 258 Mich App 538, 540; 672 NW2d 531 (2003). The parties are contesting whether MCL 722.634 is applicable to their upcoming adjudication trial.

Id. at 9. Hill v Hoig, 258 Mich App 538, 540; 672 NW2d 531 (2003). Chastain v General Motors Corp (On Remand), 254 Mich App 576, 590; 657 NW2d 804 (2003).

The wrongful-conduct rule and contributory negligence are not equivalent concepts. Under a contributory negligence system, a plaintiff's claim may be barred based on any negligent conduct by the plaintiff, Hill v Hoig, 258 Mich App 538, 541; 672 NW2d 531 (2003), while the wrongful-conduct rule only applies to bar a claim if the claim arose out of the serious illegal conduct of the injured party, Orzel, 449 Mich at 561. Minor illegal conduct will not even trigger the wrongful-conduct rule, id., much less negligent conduct that is not serious illegal conduct.

Comparative negligence only serves to reduce the amount of damages a plaintiff may recover to the extent that the plaintiff was negligent, whereas any negligence on the part of the plaintiff would bar recovery under the doctrine of contributory negligence.Hill v. Hoig, 258 Mich. App. 538, 533 (2003). Thus, while the facts are similar, the legal analysis in Modzel is quite unhelpful because under the law of comparative negligence, the inquiry no longer ends with a finding of plaintiff's negligence.

"[T]he trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Hill v. Hoig , 258 Mich. App. 538, 540, 672 N.W.2d 531 (2003). "Instructional error warrants reversal if the error resulted in such unfair prejudice to the complaining party that the failure to vacate the jury verdict would be inconsistent with substantial justice."

I believe that the applicability of that instruction to this case remains in the trial court's discretion. See Hill v. Hoig , 258 Mich. App. 538, 540, 672 N.W.2d 531 (2003). The parties are contesting whether MCL 722.634 is applicable to their upcoming adjudication trial.