Court Opinion

ID: 9663581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:43:29.781231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:52.230427
License: Public Domain

Carr, J.
(concurring). It is apparent in this case that the jury did not include in its verdict any allowance to plaintiff for pain and suffering undergone by him as the result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The trial judge charged specifically as follows :
“If you find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, you should award him an amount of money sufficient to reasonably compensate him for the pain and suffering, both physical and mental, caused by any injuries or disability which resulted from this accident. Plaintiff is entitled to recover for all of his pain, suffering and disability as a result of this accident, *127even though you find that because of some prior condition he may have been more susceptible to injury or suffered more and even though because of the prior condition the injury produced more serious results.”
The conclusion is unavoidable that the jury disregarded the instruction as given and, in consequence, returned an inadequate verdict. We are in accord with plaintiff’s contention that a new trial should be granted for such reason.
Plaintiff’s attending physician was not called as a witness on the trial, nor was his testimony introduced by way of deposition. At defendants’ request the trial judge charged the jury that the failure to introduce such testimony gave the jury the right to assume that the testimony of the physician, had it been offered, would have been unfavorable to the plaintiff. Other medical testimony was introduced with reference to plaintiff’s injuries and the!door was thus opened for defendants to call the physician in question, or to take his deposition, if they wished to do so. In view of the situation in this respect we think the charge was erroneous. DeGroff v. Clark, 358 Mich 274, and statutory provisions there discussed.
For the reasons indicated we concur in reversal and remand for a new trial.
Dethmers, C. J., and Kelly and Black, JJ., concurred with Carr, J.