Case Name: KAILMIAI v. THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY (On Remand)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-11-27
Citations: 87 Mich. App. 144
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 21693, 21694
Parties: KAILMIAI v THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY (On Remand)
Judges: Before: Bashara, P.J., and Bronson and C. W. Simon, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 87
Pages: 144–156

Head Matter:
KAILMIAI v THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY (On Remand)
Docket Nos. 21693, 21694.
Submitted June 8, 1978, at Detroit.
Decided November 27, 1978.
Henry C. Kailimai, R. LaVerne Kailimai, husband and wife, and Michael Watters brought an action against the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company for damages caused by the blowout of a tire manufactured by the defendant. Watters’ action was separated for trial. Mr. Kailimai was awarded $48,000 on his claim for personal and consequential injuries and Mrs. Kailimai was awarded $12,000 for loss of consortium in Wayne Circuit Court, Elza H. Papp, J. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was granted as to Mr. Kailimai, and as to Mrs. Kailimai unless she accepted a remittitur of all of her judgment in excess of $1,000. The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals peremptorily ordered a new trial as to both plaintiffs, limited to the issue of damages. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court which remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave to appeal granted, 398 Mich 230 (1976). On remand, held:
References for Points in Headnotes
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 622, 649.
41 Am Jur 2d, Husband and Wife §§ 448-450.
41 Am Jur 2d, Husband and Wife § 455.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 850, 851.
58 Am Jur 2d, New Trial §§ 120, 121, 123, 124.
22 Am Jur 2d, Damages § 315.
Admissibility, as against objection of remoteness, of evidence as to past earnings, upon issue as to amount of damages in an action for personal injury or death. 81 ALR2d 733.
30 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 1089.
81 Am Jur 2d, Witnesses § 75.
22 Am Jur 2d, Damages § 366.
41 Am Jur 2d, Husband and Wife §§ 7, 482.
41 Am Jur 2d, Husband and Wife § 493.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 608. 22 Am Jur 2d, Damages § 326.
22 Am Jur 2d, Damages § 326. 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 387.
1. The trial order for Mr. Kailimai’s claim was improper and the jury verdict must be reinstated.
2. The loss of consortium claim was established and the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a remittitur since the award was within the limits of what reasonable men might deem just compensation.
Reversed, and the jury verdict reinstated.
C. W. Simon, J., concurred in part and dissented in part. He would hold that:
1. The defendant is not entitled to a new trial on Mr. Kailimai’s claim because none of the three grounds assigned by the trial judge as the basis for granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial are sufficient to uphold the trial court’s ruling.
2. The plaintiffs’ proofs on the loss of consortium claim was legally insufficient, therefore, a judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict should be granted.
3. The defendant waived any objection as to the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ proofs with regard to the property damage claim because the defendant failed to move the trial court for a directed verdict and the defendant is no more entitled to a new trial than to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
He would affirm the award for Mr. Kailimai and grant a judgment in favor of the defendant notwithstanding the verdict for Mrs. Kailimai.
Opinion op the Court
1. Evidence — Competence to Testify — Value of Chattels — Self-Serving Testimony — Admissibility of Evidence.
The owner of a chattel is competent to testify as to its value; this is especially true where the owner is engaged in a business which makes use of such chattel; while such testimony may be self-serving, that is a matter for the jury to consider in determining the weight to be accorded it and does not relate to admissibility.
2. Husband and Wife — Damages—Loss of Consortium — Words and Phrases.
Loss of consortium includes loss of society, companionship, service and all other incidents of the marriage relationship.
3. Damages — Husband and Wife — Loss of Consortium — Jury Question.
The amount of damages suffered by a person who has established a claim for loss of consortium is a fact question to be determined by the jury and will not be set aside unless it is so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience.
Partial Dissent, Partial Concurrence by C. W. Simon, J.
4. Appeal and Error — New Trial — Legally Sufficient Reasons.
The Court of Appeals, in deciding whether an order granting a new trial should be upheld on appeal, must determine whether the reasons assigned by the trial judge are legally recognized and supported by a reasonable interpretation of the record.
5. Evidence — Admission of Evidence — Damages—New Trial.
The admission of evidence which was offered by a plaintiff in support of damages claimed in the plaintiff’s original complaint but had not been included in the pretrial statement cannot be considered grounds for a new trial where the issues were not expressly waived by the plaintiff.
6. Evidence — Damages—Testimony—Party as Witness — Earnings.
There is no legal restriction which precludes a party from testifying as to the amount of his earnings prior to being injured in an accident.
7. Evidence — Admissibility—Objections to Evidence — Preserving Issue — Appeal and Error.
Objections to the admissibility of evidence unless properly raised at trial cannot be later asserted on appeal.
8. Witnesses — Competence—Personal Knowledge.
A witness is competent to testify to things within the witness’s personal knowledge.
9. Damages — Personal Injuries — Excessive Damages — Setting Aside Verdict — Pain and Suffering — Loss of Consortium.
A verdict rendered in an action for damages for personal injuries should not be set aside as being excessive as long as the amount awarded is within the range of the evidence and is within the limits of what reasonable minds might deem just compensation for such imponderable items as personal injuries sustained, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium.
10. Husband and Wife — Consortium—Words and Phrases.
Loss of consortium includes such intangibles as comfort, society, aid, companionship and normal conjugal affection which are not subject to exact measure.
11. Evidence — Legal Sufficiency of Evidence — Loss of Consortium — State of Marital Relationship Prior to Injury.
The evidence in regard to a loss of consortium claim is legally insufficient unless testimony is introduced concerning the state of the marital relationship before as well as after the incident out of which the claim arises; where there is no evidence to guide the jury, either a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is proper.
12. Evidence — Legal Sufficiency of Evidence — Value of Property —Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict — Directed Verdict — Motions.
A judgment notwithstanding the verdict, with regard to a claim for property damage, based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence of the value of the property before it was damaged, is xmavailable to a defendant where the defendant failed to move for a directed verdict in the trial court; by such failure, the defendant waived his objection as to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s proofs in that respect (GCR 1963, 515.2).
13. Evidence — Legal Sufficiency of Evidence — Market Value— Value of Property — Reasonable Time.
Evidence of market value, in an . action for property damages, is not legally sufficient where it is not conñned to a reasonable time before the damage occurred.
14. Damages — Evidence—Legal Sufficiency of Evidence — Property Damage — Value of Property — Preserving Issue — Directed Verdict — Motions.
A defendant in an action for property damages waives all objection to legal insufficiency of the plaintiff’s proofs of the value of the damaged property by failing to move for a directed verdict where some evidence is presented by the plaintiff and the defect, if any, could have been readily cured; such defendant should no more be entitled to a directed verdict than, to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Zeff & Zeff (by Gary C. Berger) (Edward Grebs, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Butzel, Long, Gust, Klein & Van Zile (by John H. Dudley, Jr.), for defendant.
Before: Bashara, P.J., and Bronson and C. W. Simon, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
On Remand
Bronson, J.
We agree with Judge Simon's disposition of the case as to Mr. Kailimai. The fact that he did not produce documentation for his estimates concerning the value of the truck, lost wages, and lost investment goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Since the testimony was properly admitted, there was no legally recognized reason given by the trial court for overturning the jury verdict and granting a new trial. Kailimai v The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co, 398 Mich 230; 247 NW2d 295 (1976). The new trial order for Mr. Kailimai's claim was improper and the jury verdict must be reinstated.
We disagree with Judge Simon, however, on his disposition of Mrs. Kailimai's loss of consortium claim. Loss of consortium includes "loss of society, companionship, service, and all other incidents of the marriage relationship". Washington v Jones, 386 Mich 466, 472; 192 NW2d 234 (1972).
Mrs. Kailimai testified that her husband was confined to the hospital for two weeks after the accident. She further testified that for several months after arriving home, her husband could no longer sleep in bed but had to sleep in a reclining chair because of the pain. Neither she nor the children could touch him or get near him. Furthermore, he was unable to do any work around the house or take care of the children.
This testimony clearly shows that after the acci dent Mrs. Kailimai was deprived of the companionship and services of her husband which she had previously enjoyed. Since she had established a claim for loss of consortium, the amount of damages suffered is a fact question to be determined by the jury and will not be set aside unless it is so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience. See Pippen v Denison Division of Abex Corp, 66 Mich App 664; 239 NW2d 704 (1976), lv den, 399 Mich 823 (1977). Since our review of the record demonstrates that the award was " 'within the limits of what reasonable minds might deem just compensation' ", the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a remittitur.
The trial court's judgment is reversed and the jury verdict is reinstated. Costs to plaintiffs.
Bashara, P.J., concurred.
Because we have concluded that the evidence was properly admitted, we have no need to address the directed verdict issue raised in the dissenting and concurring opinion.
Stevens v Edward C Levy Co, 376 Mich 1, 5; 135 NW2d 414 (1965), quoting 6 Callaghan's Michigan Pleading & Practice (2d ed), § 41.13, p 378.