Court Opinion

ID: 9738822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:03:42.248318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.692008
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring in reversal). I agree with Justice Otis M. Smith’s analysis of the case and the conclusions reached by him. Specifically, I would reverse on account of jury instruction as follows:
“The Court: I apparently did not make myself plain. With respect to the special questions they must all be answered alike. If they are not all *371answered alike it constitutes a disagreement. I am quite sure I made that statement earlier today. Do you feel it is possible, Mr. Foreman, to come to an agreement as to the answers to the special questions?”
This was patent error. For elucidation, see Cole v. Boyd, 47 Mich 98; Maclean v. Scripps, 52 Mich 214; Mechanics’ Bank of Detroit v. Barnes, 86 Mich 632; Taylor v. Davarn, 191 Mich 243; and Tober v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 210 Mich 129. When and if special questions are framed properly for the presented issues of fact and are duly submitted to the jury for answer, the jury should be.left free to answer such questions according to its view of the facts and should not be instructed that all questions must- b,e answered “alike” on penalty of “disagreement.”
■ A mistrial may of course result from conflicting "answers. But that is a matter for judicially exclusive determination after the jury has returned its general verdict, has handed" in its uninfluenced answers to the special questions, and has been discharged from duty to the case.
The. results reported to the. court by the jury were begotten of reversible error and unintentional yet prejudicial coercion. Plaintiff on that account is entitled to an order for retrial.
O’Hara, J., took no part in the decision of this case.