Court Opinion

ID: 9517317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:13:20.45554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:17.233299
License: Public Domain

Churchill, J.
(dissenting). I dissent for the same reasons as the dissent in Benson v. Watson (1970), 26 Mich App 142. According to the view expressed by the majority of the Supreme Court, Breckon did not change the law. In Benson counsel for the defendant could have made a timely objection to the liberal jury instruction, under existing law, and defendant would have been entitled to a new trial, but he did not do so. In this case counsel for plaintiff could have offered the kind of proofs now suggested by the majority opinion. Defendant, unlike the defendant in Benson, did not agree to the measure of damages used by the trier of facts and should be entitled to object to the error without being *230subjected to another defense on the damage issue. I vote to remand for a redetermination of damages by the trial court on the existing record.