Kupkowski v. Avis Ford, Inc.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Kupkowski v. Avis Ford, Inc.

215 N.W.2d 767, 51 Mich. App. 668, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 960

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 4, 1974

DocketDocket 15364

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 215 N.W.2d 767 (Kupkowski v. Avis Ford, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kupkowski v. Avis Ford, Inc., 215 N.W.2d 767, 51 Mich. App. 668, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 960 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

[670]*670V. J. Brennan, P. J.

This is a products liability case. Defendant appeals from a jury verdict for plaintiff on counts of implied warranty and negligence.¹

Defendant contends it was error for the trial court to deny its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In reviewing these motions we must view all the evidence and testimony adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the party against whom these motions were made. If, when so viewed, there is any evidence which was competent and sufficient to support the jury’s determination, this determination should not be disturbed. Wamser v N J Westra & Sons, Inc, 9 Mich App 89; 155 NW2d 871 (1967); Taft v J L Hudson Co, 37 Mich App 692; 195 NW2d 296 (1972).

Five weeks after plaintiff purchased a used car from defendant, he ran a red light and collided with another automobile. Plaintiff testified that he was unable to stop because his brake pedal would not depress. This testimony is the sole evidence of brake failure. Defendant offered testimony of various witnesses, including plaintiff, that there had been no prior trouble with the automobile’s brakes. Indeed, the investigating police officer testified that an inspection of plaintiff’s automobile immediately after the accident revealed that the brakes worked properly and that it had left skid marks at the scene.

We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. Therefore, it was. error to deny defendant’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

[671]*671Reversed and remanded for the entry of a directed verdict.

Van Valkenburg, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[670]*670V. J. Brennan, P. J.

This is a products liability case. Defendant appeals from a jury verdict for plaintiff on counts of implied warranty and negligence.¹

Defendant contends it was error for the trial court to deny its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In reviewing these motions we must view all the evidence and testimony adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the party against whom these motions were made. If, when so viewed, there is any evidence which was competent and sufficient to support the jury’s determination, this determination should not be disturbed. Wamser v N J Westra & Sons, Inc, 9 Mich App 89; 155 NW2d 871 (1967); Taft v J L Hudson Co, 37 Mich App 692; 195 NW2d 296 (1972).

Five weeks after plaintiff purchased a used car from defendant, he ran a red light and collided with another automobile. Plaintiff testified that he was unable to stop because his brake pedal would not depress. This testimony is the sole evidence of brake failure. Defendant offered testimony of various witnesses, including plaintiff, that there had been no prior trouble with the automobile’s brakes. Indeed, the investigating police officer testified that an inspection of plaintiff’s automobile immediately after the accident revealed that the brakes worked properly and that it had left skid marks at the scene.

We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. Therefore, it was. error to deny defendant’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

[671]*671Reversed and remanded for the entry of a directed verdict.

Van Valkenburg, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.W.2d 767, 51 Mich. App. 668, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kupkowski-v-avis-ford-inc-michctapp-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack