Tarver v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals

Tarver v. City of Detroit

223 N.W.2d 734, 56 Mich. App. 198, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 714

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 1974

DocketDocket No. 14407

StatusPublished

This text of 223 N.W.2d 734 (Tarver v. City of Detroit) 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

Tarver v. City of Detroit, 223 N.W.2d 734, 56 Mich. App. 198, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 714 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

R. L. Smith, J.

Plaintiff Joel Julius Tarver, III, was injured when he was struck by a garbage truck operated by the defendant municipality. An action to recover for his personal injuries and the medical expenses incurred by his father resulted in a jury verdict of $10,000 for the boy and $5,000 for the father. The defendant’s motion for a new trial, or, in the alternative, for a remittitur was denied as to the minor’s verdict but the trial court ordered a remittitur to $1,506.50 by the father. From this order and the denial of the motion, both parties appeal.

The defendant municipality’s contention that the trial court erred by denying the motion for a new trial because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and excessive cannot be sustained. Cleven v Griffin, 298 Mich 139; 298 NW 482 (1941); Morgan v Engles, 13 Mich App 656; 164 NW2d 740 (1968).

The evidence and testimony presented by the plaintiffs indicated that the total medical expenses, including future treatment, would reach $1,834. The jury’s verdict of $5,000 was not within the range of the testimony presented; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the [200]*200remittitur. Dillard v Braunstein, 32 Mich App 216, 219; 188 NW2d 203 (1971).

It appears, however, that the lower court made a minor miscalculation when computing the total of the various medical bills introduced by the plaintiffs. The correct total is $1,834. Therefore, the order of the trial court is amended to reflect this figure. GCR 1963, 820.1.

Affirmed. No costs, neither party having prevailed in full.

R. B. Burns, J., concurred.

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

R. L. Smith, J.

Plaintiff Joel Julius Tarver, III, was injured when he was struck by a garbage truck operated by the defendant municipality. An action to recover for his personal injuries and the medical expenses incurred by his father resulted in a jury verdict of $10,000 for the boy and $5,000 for the father. The defendant’s motion for a new trial, or, in the alternative, for a remittitur was denied as to the minor’s verdict but the trial court ordered a remittitur to $1,506.50 by the father. From this order and the denial of the motion, both parties appeal.

The defendant municipality’s contention that the trial court erred by denying the motion for a new trial because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and excessive cannot be sustained. Cleven v Griffin, 298 Mich 139; 298 NW 482 (1941); Morgan v Engles, 13 Mich App 656; 164 NW2d 740 (1968).

The evidence and testimony presented by the plaintiffs indicated that the total medical expenses, including future treatment, would reach $1,834. The jury’s verdict of $5,000 was not within the range of the testimony presented; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the [200]*200remittitur. Dillard v Braunstein, 32 Mich App 216, 219; 188 NW2d 203 (1971).

It appears, however, that the lower court made a minor miscalculation when computing the total of the various medical bills introduced by the plaintiffs. The correct total is $1,834. Therefore, the order of the trial court is amended to reflect this figure. GCR 1963, 820.1.

Affirmed. No costs, neither party having prevailed in full.

R. B. Burns, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 N.W.2d 734, 56 Mich. App. 198, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarver-v-city-of-detroit-michctapp-1974.

Opinions

R. L. Smith, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack