Court Opinion

ID: 9666339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:11:09.937982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:44.904881
License: Public Domain

S. Everett, J.
(concurring). While I concur in the result reached, I feel compelled to write separately. This decision recognizes the fact that the trial court’s instructing the jury that no physician is required to guarantee results properly states the law, under the circumstances of this case. At the same time, trial courts are urged to limit their instructions to only the applicable standard jury instruction.
The refusal to give a requested instruction which states the applicable law, and is supported by the evidence, is error. Richman v City of Berkley, 84 Mich App 258; 269 NW2d 555 (1978); Bailey v Graves, 411 Mich 510; 309 NW2d 166 (1981). If a trial court accepts the admonition of the majority opinion, such acceptance constitutes error, and probably error mandating reversal. If a trial court follows the above-noted rule, then it is ignoring the urging of this Court. I do not believe that the trial bench should be placed in this position.