- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

ZAKIR SAIYED,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant

, UNPUBLISHED March 6, 2018

v No. 335917

Washtenaw Circuit Court

SAMANTHA ELAINE NAIR and RAJ NAIR

, LC No. 14

- 001130

- NI

Defendant s

- Appell ees

.

Before: C AVANAGH

, P .J., and H OEKSTRA and B ECKERING , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Plaintiff, Zakir Saiyed, appeals as of right from the judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict following a jury trial in this third

- party automobile negligence action. In October 2013, Zakir and other family members were riding in a minivan that collided with a car driven by

defendant Samantha Nair

. 1 Plaintiff and his two brothers sued defendants for economic loss damages in ex cess of compensable no

- fault benefits a nd noneconomic damages they claim to

have suffered as a result of the accident. 2 Samantha admitted fault for the accident, but

d efendants argued that none of the brothers was seriously injured in the crash and that a ny disab ilities plaintiff had were pre

- existing

. The parties presented competing evidence regarding plaintiff’s physical injuries and economic loss. The jur y rendered separate verdict s regarding

e ach brother and found that their injuries, although proximately caused by defendants, did not result in any compensable damages. W e affirm.

1 Samantha’s father, defendant Raj Nair, owned the car she was driving at the time of the

accident.

2 Plaintiff’s brothers filed a separate lawsuit that was consolidated with the instant case and both cases were tried together.- 2

- On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by entering a judgment of no cause on the jury verdict because the great weight of the evidence established that plaintiff suffered economic damages for wage loss in excess of the statutorily capped no

- fault wage loss benefits he received, that he suffered economic damages for future wage loss, and he suffered a serious impairment of body function. An issue is preserved for appeal if it was raised, addressed, and decided by the trial court. Polkton Charter Twp v Pellegron , 265 Mich App 88, 95; 693 NW2d 170 (2005) . In this case, plaintiff failed to raise the issues he raises on appea l before the trial

court ; h e filed no motion for judg ment notwithstandin g the verdict, and he filed no motion for a new trial. There fore, he failed to preserve the issue s for appeal.

Michigan generally follows a raise or waive rule of appellate review in civil matters

. Walters v Nadell , 481 Mich 377, 387

- 388; 751 NW2d 431 (2008). Although the Michigan Supreme Court has held that this Court must review unpreserved errors in criminal cas es for plain error affecting the defendant’s rights, see People v Carines , 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), it has not established a similar holding for civil cases. See Walters , 481 Mich. at

387

- 388; see also Johnson Family LP v White Pine Wireless, LLC , 281 Mich App 364, 377

- 378; 761 NW2d 353 (2008) (stating th at the failure to properly raise a claim of error before the trial court in a civil case normally constitutes a waiver of that claim and declining to exercise its discretion to review the unpreserved claim under the facts of that case). Nevertheless, this Court

has the discretion to overlook preservation requirements if failure to consider an issue would

res ult in a manifest injustice, if consideration is necessary for a proper determination of the case,

or if the issue involves a significant question of l aw and the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented

. Smith v Foerster

- Bolser Constr, Inc , 269 Mich App 424, 427; 711 NW2d 421 (2006)

. But we must exercise our discretion sparingly and only where exceptional

circumstances warrant review. Se e Booth v Univ of Mich Bd of Regents , 444 Mich 211, 234 n 23; 507 NW2d 422 (1993).

In Napier v Jacobs , 429 Mich 222, 232

- 235 ; 414 NW2d 862 (1987), the Michigan Supreme Court explained that this Court has limited authority to review unpreserved claims of error regarding evidentiary weight or sufficiency in civil cases, and should only exercise its discretion where compelling circu mstances require action to avoid a miscarriage of justice. In this case, nothing in the trial court record establishes that the jury’s verdict resulted in a miscarriage of justice . The parties presented their evidence

, an d the jury simply rejected plaint iff ’s contention that he suffered economic damages entitling him to compensation or a serious impairment of body function entitling him to noneconomic damages

. To the extent plaintiff urges this Court to reconsider the credibility of certain witnesses, we decline to do so. Determining the credibility and weight of trial testimony is the responsibility of the jury, and we “defer to the jury on issues of witness credibility.” Guerrero v Smith , 280 Mich App 647, 669; 761 NW2d 723 (2008).

We find no compell ing reason s for disturbing the trial court’s judgment entered upon the jury ’s verdict because ampl e evidence supported the verdict and the trial did not result in manifest injustice or the miscarriage of justice. T he record indicates that the jury properl y considered and weighed all of the evidence

. It found that plaintiff suffered no economic losses

in excess of no

- fault benefits and suffered no serious impairments. When reasonable jurors could differ in their interpretation of the evidence, their verdict must stand. Guerrero

, 280 Mich- 3

- App at 666

. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err by entering judgment based upon the jury’s verdict.

Affirmed.

/s/ Mar k J. Cavanagh

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Jane M. Beckering