Ross v. Richardson

Michigan Court of Appeals

Ross v. Richardson

185 N.W.2d 106, 29 Mich. App. 110, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1088

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 10, 1970

DocketDocket 7470

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 185 N.W.2d 106 (Ross v. Richardson) 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

Ross v. Richardson, 185 N.W.2d 106, 29 Mich. App. 110, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1088 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

R. B. Burns, J.

This negligence action, tried without a jury, resulted in a six-cent damage award for the plaintiff. Defendant admitted she had driven into the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle but contested the amount of damages alleged by plaintiff at trial level. Plaintiff appeals the six-cent award on the basis that it was clearly inadequate.

It is elementary that credibility of witnesses, resolution of factual conflicts and the weight accorded the testimony of witnesses rests with the trier of fact (Erickson v. Soyars [1959], 356 Mich 64; Graham v. Thorman [1958], 354 Mich 629) and that findings of fact will not he set aside unless clearly erroneous (GRCR 1963, 517.1; Coffee-Rich, Inc., v. Department of Agriculture [1965], 1 Mich App 225; Hughson v. O’Reilly [1967], 7 Mich App 324).

The opinion of the trial court reveals that the trial judge, sitting as the trier of fact, could find no property damage. The plaintiff’s medical testimony as to physical injuries was simply not believed. Ample evidence exists supporting the trial court’s conclusion that the physical injuries and property damages were not proximately caused by defendant’s act and this Court extends due credence to these findings. However, the six-cent award does ignore uncontroverted out-of-pocket expenses for emergency medical treatment obtained by plaintiff. *112 The six-cent award, so far as it ignored this uncontroverted expense, is on its face inadequate. Whitson v. Whiteley Poultry Co. (1968), 11 Mich App 598; Hugener v. Michlap (1966), 2 Mich App 157.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial as to damages only. Costs to plaintiff.

All concurred.

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

R. B. Burns, J.

This negligence action, tried without a jury, resulted in a six-cent damage award for the plaintiff. Defendant admitted she had driven into the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle but contested the amount of damages alleged by plaintiff at trial level. Plaintiff appeals the six-cent award on the basis that it was clearly inadequate.

It is elementary that credibility of witnesses, resolution of factual conflicts and the weight accorded the testimony of witnesses rests with the trier of fact (Erickson v. Soyars [1959], 356 Mich 64; Graham v. Thorman [1958], 354 Mich 629) and that findings of fact will not he set aside unless clearly erroneous (GRCR 1963, 517.1; Coffee-Rich, Inc., v. Department of Agriculture [1965], 1 Mich App 225; Hughson v. O’Reilly [1967], 7 Mich App 324).

The opinion of the trial court reveals that the trial judge, sitting as the trier of fact, could find no property damage. The plaintiff’s medical testimony as to physical injuries was simply not believed. Ample evidence exists supporting the trial court’s conclusion that the physical injuries and property damages were not proximately caused by defendant’s act and this Court extends due credence to these findings. However, the six-cent award does ignore uncontroverted out-of-pocket expenses for emergency medical treatment obtained by plaintiff. *112 The six-cent award, so far as it ignored this uncontroverted expense, is on its face inadequate. Whitson v. Whiteley Poultry Co. (1968), 11 Mich App 598; Hugener v. Michlap (1966), 2 Mich App 157.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial as to damages only. Costs to plaintiff.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 N.W.2d 106, 29 Mich. App. 110, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-richardson-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

R. B. Burns, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack