Litle v. Grieve

Michigan Court of Appeals

Litle v. Grieve

181 N.W.2d 5, 25 Mich. App. 107, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1520

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1970

DocketDocket 6,255

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 181 N.W.2d 5 (Litle v. Grieve) 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

Litle v. Grieve, 181 N.W.2d 5, 25 Mich. App. 107, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action arose out of an automobile-pedestrian accident which occurred in Octo *108 her, 1961. A jury trial was held and plaintiff was awarded $18,000. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he has appealed alleging several errors.

After a careful reading of the trial court’s instructions regarding the application of MCLA §§ 257.612, 257.613 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev §§ 9.2312, 9.2313) concerning pedestrians crossing streets, we hold that the instructions were not erroneous.

Defendant asserts that the admission of the rebuttal testimony was prejudicial to him because he was surprised and plaintiff was trying to get in a last word to the jury. The record does not support these allegations since the trial court granted a one-day continuance so that defendant could bring in a surrebuttal witness. We find no error. The admission of rebuttal evidence rests in the sound discretion of the court. Arnold v. Ellis (1966), 5 Mich App 101.

The other issues raised by defendant relating to the denial of a directed verdict, plaintiff’s contributory negligence as a matter of law, and the verdict being against the great weight of the evidence are not sustained by the record.

Affirmed, costs to plaintiff.

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