Court Opinion

ID: 9850378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:56:16.62465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:36.026454
License: Public Domain

Griffin, J.
(dissenting). While I concur in parts i and ii of the separate opinion of Justice Boyle, I dissent from the majority’s holding that instruction on the rescue doctrine requires reversal.
Although the instruction as given by the trial court was not inconsistent with SJI2d 13.07, I agree that it was technically flawed for reasons recognized in the other opinions.
However, as the Court of Appeals stated:
[N]ot all instructional error requires reversal. A jury verdict should be vacated only when the error amounts to a defect in the trial such that the failure to set aside the verdict would be inconsistent with substantial justice. Johnson v Corbet, 423 Mich 304, 326; 377 NW2d 713 (1985). Jury instructions must be read as a whole and reversal is not required if the theories of the parties and the applicable law were fairly presented to the jury. Scalabrino v Grand Trunk W R Co, 135 Mich *154App 758, 766; 356 NW2d 258 (1984), lv den 422 Mich 877 (1985). A reading of the jury instructions in their entirety in the instant case leads us to conclude that the error was harmless. The jury was instructed on comparative negligence and was told that plaintiff’s damages were to be reduced by the amount which they found decedent to have been negligent. The jury found both decedent and Shuell to be negligent, with decedent eighty percent negligent. We believe that the jury’s verdict would not have been different had a different instruction been given and that, on the whole, the theories of the parties and the applicable law were fairly presented to the jury. Thus, the error does not warrant reversal. [166 Mich App 19, 27; 420 NW2d 160 (1988).]
Because I conclude that the errors complained of are not grounds for reversal, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.