Court Opinion

ID: 9696066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:34:53.739855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:18.133490
License: Public Domain

*670V. J. Brennan, P. J.
This is a products liability case. Defendant appeals from a jury verdict for plaintiff on counts of implied warranty and negligence.1
Defendant contends it was error for the trial court to deny its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In reviewing these motions we must view all the evidence and testimony adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the party against whom these motions were made. If, when so viewed, there is any evidence which was competent and sufficient to support the jury’s determination, this determination should not be disturbed. Wamser v N J Westra & Sons, Inc, 9 Mich App 89; 155 NW2d 871 (1967); Taft v J L Hudson Co, 37 Mich App 692; 195 NW2d 296 (1972).
Five weeks after plaintiff purchased a used car from defendant, he ran a red light and collided with another automobile. Plaintiff testified that he was unable to stop because his brake pedal would not depress. This testimony is the sole evidence of brake failure. Defendant offered testimony of various witnesses, including plaintiff, that there had been no prior trouble with the automobile’s brakes. Indeed, the investigating police officer testified that an inspection of plaintiff’s automobile immediately after the accident revealed that the brakes worked properly and that it had left skid marks at the scene.
We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. Therefore, it was. error to deny defendant’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
*671Reversed and remanded for the entry of a directed verdict.
Van Valkenburg, J., concurred.

 The jury also returned a verdict for plaintiff on a separate count of misrepresentation of mileage. There was ample evidence to support that verdict, and it is not a subject of this appeal.