McNabb v. Green Real Estate Co.

41 Citing cases

  1. White v. Haque

    No. 334084 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 17, 2018)

    Defendants rely on a case that addressed the predecessor rule to MCR 2.511(D), GCR 1963 511.4(13), which provided that grounds for challenges for cause include "that the person is interested in a question like the issue to be tried." In McNabb v Green Real Estate Co, 62 Mich App 500; 233 NW2d 811 (1975), the plaintiff slipped and fell on a stairway. He brought a premises liability action against the defendant owner.

  2. People v. Walker

    162 Mich. App. 60 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 27 times
    In Walker, 162 Mich.App. at 64-65, however, a juror's position as a police officer, without more, was insufficient to create an inference of bias.

    Jurors are presumed to be competent and impartial and the burden of proving otherwise is on the party seeking disqualification. McNabb v Green Real Estate Co, 62 Mich. App. 500, 505; 233 N.W.2d 811 (1975). The dismissal of prospective jurors is governed by MCR 2.511(D), which provides:

  3. Wilkinson v. Lee

    463 Mich. 388 (Mich. 2000)   Cited 109 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the evidence supported a jury's finding that an automobile accident was the cause in fact of symptoms such as nausea, severe headaches, dizziness, double vision, and accelerating memory loss from a preexisting brain tumor, where there was medical testimony that the trauma caused by the accident triggered the symptoms

    [ Id.] See Rypstra v Western Union Telegraph Co, 374 Mich. 166, 167-168; 132 N.W.2d 140 (1965); Richman v City of Berkley, 84 Mich. App. 258, 262; 269 N.W.2d 555 (1978); McNabb v Green Real Estate Co, 62 Mich. App. 500, 515-519; 233 N.W.2d 811 (1975); Schwingschlegl v City of Monroe, 113 Mich. 683, 685-686; 72 N.W. 7 (1897); Rawlings v Clyde Plank Macadamized Road Co, 158 Mich. 143, 146; 122 N.W. 504 (1909). This case is a clear one for the application of that principle.

  4. Tingey v. Christensen

    987 P.2d 588 (Utah 1999)   Cited 22 times
    Recognizing Newbury rule

    See e.g., Newberry v. Vogel, 379 P.2d 811, 813 (Colo. 1963);Hamblen v. Owens, 172 So. 694, 696 (Fla. 1937); Kawamoto v. Yasutake, 410 P.2d 976, 981 (Haw. 1966); Bushongv. Kamiah Grain, Inc., 534 P.2d 1099, 1101 (Idaho 1975) (citing Blaine v. Byers, 429 P.2d 397, 405-06 (Idaho 1967));Lovely v. Allstate Ins. Co., 658 A.2d 1091, 1092-93 (Me. 1995); McNabb v. Green Real Estate Co., 233 N.W.2d 811, 818 (Mich. 1975); Bigley v. Craven, 769 P.2d 892, 898 (Wyo. 1989); see also Tolan v. ERA Helicopters, Inc., 699 P.2d 1265, 1272 (Alaska 1985) (citing LaMoureaux v. Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc., 632 P.2d 539, 543-45 (Alaska 1981)). ¶ 14 The proposition follows from several legal principles: first, a tortfeasor takes a tort victim as he or she finds the victim, see Brunson v. Strong, 17 Utah 2d 364, 412 P.2d 451, 453 (1966); second, a tortfeasor should bear the burden of uncertainty in the amount of a tort victim's damages, see Atkin Wright Miles v. Mountain States Tel. Tel. Co., 709 P.2d 330, 336 (Utah 1985); and third, once the fact of damage is established, "a defendant should not escape liability because the amount of damage cannot be proved with precision."

  5. Adams v. Nat'l Bank of Detroit

    444 Mich. 329 (Mich. 1993)   Cited 38 times
    Discussing the elements of the tort

    It has long been established that a wrongdoer takes an injured person as he finds him, and, that, if the defendant's wrongful conduct is proved by a preponderance of the evidence to be the proximate cause of the aggravation of a latent disability, he is liable for such aggravation regardless of whether he had knowledge of the disability. McNabb v Green Real Estate Co, 62 Mich. App. 500, 518; 233 N.W.2d 811 (1975), citing as supporting authority Schwingschlegl v City of Monroe, 113 Mich. 683; 72 N.W. 7 (1897). According to Ms. Mach's testimony, she released information to Officer Mero without possession of the file or the benefit of actual knowledge.

  6. Poet v. Traverse City Osteopathic Hospital

    433 Mich. 228 (Mich. 1989)   Cited 33 times
    In Poet, 433 Mich at 240, our Supreme Court established a legal test that could be used "to uniformly determine when a trial court's error in overruling a challenge for cause requires reversal[.]"

    This showing is equivalent to proving a biased or prejudicial state of mind. See, e.g., McNabb v Green Real Estate Co, 62 Mich. App. 500, 507; 233 N.W.2d 811 (1975); Brownell v Brown, 114 Mich. App. 760, 766; 319 N.W.2d 664 (1982); Bishop v Interlake, Inc, 121 Mich. App. 397, 401; 328 N.W.2d 643 (1982); Willoughby v Lehrbass, 150 Mich. App. 319, 331; 388 N.W.2d 688 (1986); People v Lamar, 153 Mich. App. 127, 134-135; 395 N.W.2d 262 (1986); Cocora v General Motors Corp, 161 Mich. App. 92, 95-96; 409 N.W.2d 736 (1987); People v Walker, 162 Mich. App. 60, 63-64; 412 N.W.2d 244 (1987). Ultimately, however, the decision to grant or deny a challenge for cause is within the sound discretion of the trial court.

  7. Bigley v. Craven

    769 P.2d 892 (Wyo. 1989)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that the jury should be instructed that if it is unable to apportion plaintiff's damages between a pre-existing disability and a condition caused by an accident, then the defendant is liable for the entire damages award

    LaMoureaux, 632 P.2d at 545. The court identified McNabb v. Green Real Estate Co., 62 Mich. App. 500, 233 N.W.2d 811, 819 (1975), to be that case and to stand as authority for the principle that the injured party may be entitled to an instruction imposing the entire damages on the wrongdoer where there is evidence that apportionment is impossible. LaMoureaux, 632 P.2d at 545. In McNabb, the Michigan Court of Appeals, also drawing upon Newbury, held that a clear factual basis existed for the trial court's correctly giving the Newbury-like instruction.

  8. LaMoureaux v. Totem Ocean Trailer Exp., Inc.

    632 P.2d 539 (Alaska 1981)   Cited 19 times
    Upholding jury instruction that plaintiff was "entitled to recover damages for an aggravation of such preexisting condition or disability proximately resulting from the injury," while rejecting plaintiff's proposed instruction making defendant liable for plaintiff's entire injury if plaintiff was unable to make an apportionment between his preexisting injury and that suffered in the accident

    Id. at 1187. E.g., Newbury v. Vogel, 151 Colo. 520, 379 P.2d 811, 812-13 (1963); Graham v. Roberts, 441 F.2d 995, 998 n. 3 (D.C. Cir. 1970); Kawamoto v. Yasutake, 49 Haw. 42, 410 P.2d 976, 980-81 (1966); Blaine v. Byers, 91 Idaho 665, 429 P.2d 397, 404-06 (1967); McNabb v. Green Real Estate Co., 62 Mich. App. 500, 233 N.W.2d 811, 819-20 (1975); Fosgate v. Corona, 66 N.J. 268, 330 A.2d 355, 357-58 (1974); Foster v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, 506 S.W.2d 775, 778-79 (Tenn.App. 1973). The problem presented is hardly new or uncommon. It may be one of causation, or whether and to what extent the defendant brought about the plaintiff's injuries.

  9. People v. Johnson

    245 Mich. App. 243 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 133 times
    Holding that failure to appoint an investigator did not violate due process where the defendant's claim "that an investigator would have retraced the events during the relevant period and would have found witnesses to testify that defendant did not commit the acts that the prosecution alleged" was based on "pure conjecture"

    Id. at 855, n 13.McNabb v Green Real Estate Co, 62 Mich. App. 500, 507; 233 N.W.2d 811 (1975). Currently the Michigan Court Rules implicitly provide that upon a demonstration by counsel that a prospective juror fits one of the categories enumerated in MCR 2.511(D)(4)-(13), a trial court is required to excuse such juror for cause.

  10. Della Pella v. Wayne Co.

    168 Mich. App. 362 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    Munroe v Godkin, 111 Mich. 183, 184; 69 N.W. 244 (1896); Kingston v Fort Wayne E R Co, 112 Mich. 40, 42-44; 70 N.W. 315 (1897); Adams v Elseffer, 132 Mich. 100, 101-103; 92 N.W. 772 (1902); McQuisten v Detroit C S-R Co, 150 Mich. 332; 113 N.W. 1118 (1907); Harris v Neal, 153 Mich. 57; 116 N.W. 535 (1908); Gardner v Gardner, 311 Mich. 615, 623; 19 N.W.2d 118 (1945). This Court followed this general rule in McNabb v Green Real Estate Co, 62 Mich. App. 500, 509-512; 233 N.W.2d 811 (1975), lv den 395 Mich. 774 (1975). However, these cases were all decided before the Michigan Rules of Evidence were adopted.