Deductions of setoffs paid from collateral sources and reductions of future damages to present value are actions taken by the trial court independent of any factual finding by the jury. In contrast, the trial court trebles actual damages for trespass because the jury has found that the defendant's trespass was intentional. We thus conclude that the trial court correctly used the trebled damage figure in determining whether plaintiff was entitled to sanctions under MCR 2.405. VI Plaintiff raises the following issues on cross-appeal, none of which merits reversal. A Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motions to exclude evidence not pertaining to the sole issue of damages.
Relevant evidence is generally admissible.
A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Here, plaintiff sought to present evidence regarding the intentional nature of defendant's conduct on plaintiff's property, and also wanted the jury to be aware that defendant was an insurance agent. Prior to trial, defendant admitted that his trespass on plaintiff's property was intentional, thus entitling plaintiff to treble damages. Consequently, there was no need for the jury to have any evidence regarding the intentional nature of defendant's conduct, such as the facts surrounding the trespass itself, except as it related to the issue of assessing actual damages. Moreover, we fail to see how defendant's occupation was relevant to the issue of plaintiff's actual damages.