Opinion
No. 110845.
November 3, 1998.
Summary Dispositions November 3, 1998.
In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that Court for consideration of the additional issues raised by the defendant but not decided by the Court of Appeals. MCR 7.302(F)(1). The trial court did not commit a clear abuse of discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Jurisdiction is not retained.
Court of Appeals No. 188648.
CORRIGAN J.
I would grant defendant's motion for reconsideration of this Court's order reversing the Court of Appeals grant of a new trial. In this age discrimination case, the trial court erroneously denied defendant's pretrial motion to exclude references to defendant's motion to exclude references to defendant's corporate wealth and power. See Reetz v. Linsman Marine Transit Co, 416 Mich. 97, 110-112 (1982). Plaintiff's counsel seized on the trial court's errir and commented on this irrelevant subject in opening statement, stating that defendant was "a private empire of this Mr. Hubner," a "company making good money throughtout the time [plaintiff] was employed there," a company that had a "good profit margin," and a company that was "doing very well financially." Plantiff's counsel repeatedly returned to the theme during closing arguement, stating among his numerous improper remarks that plaintiff's dischargs was a "brutal act of corporate cruelty," and that defendant made $20,000,000 dollars or "blockbusting money." He repeated about the brutality, think about the greed and tell 'em that you're not going to allow it to happen in a language that they understand" and "[s]peak in a language they understand — money."
This Court's remarks in Reetz, supra at 111, are equally applicable to the instant case:
The effect of thess comments was to create in the minds of the jurors an image of [defendant] as an unfelling, powerful corporation controlled by a ruthless millionaire. Even a juror who harbored no prejudice against corporations or milionaires might have been swayed by these imflammatory remarks to alter his view of the evidence.
Our prior cases should have made clear that even isolated comments like these are always improper, even if not always incurable or error requiring reversal. However, when, as in this case, the theme is constantly repeated so that the error becomes indelibly impressed on the jurour's consciousness, the error becomes incurable and r equires reversal.
Therefore, I would vacate this Court's order and deny plaintiff's application for leave to appeal because the Court of Appeals properly took into account the circumstances of this case in reversing the trial court's denial or defendant's motion for a new trial.
WEAVER, C.J.
I would join in the statement of Jusicer CORRIGAN.