Court Opinion

ID: 9695872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:30:45.307964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:17.035207
License: Public Domain

Gillis, P.J.,
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I believe that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on comparative negligence, even though I agree with the remainder of the majority opinion. Plaintiff Francis Stachurski testified to the conditions under which he installed the car seat cover and the method he used. Plaintiff Francis Stachurski also testified that, while he had prescription lenses, he was told that he did not need to wear them. Plaintiff Francis Stachurski had slightly myopic eyesight. Hence, questions were presented for the jury as to whether he was negligent when installing the car seat cover, *574whether he needed his prescription lens to see what he was doing and whether the extensive damage to his eye would have occurred if he had been wearing his prescription lenses. Thus, I believe that such an instruction was supported by the evidence and that the trial court’s refusal to give such an instruction was not harmless error. Johnson v Corbet, 423 Mich 304, 326; 377 NW2d 713 (1985). Hence, I would remand for a new trial. Cf. Hierta v General Motors Corp (Supplemental Opinion), 148 Mich App 796; 385 NW2d 690 (1986), remanded for reconsideration on other grounds 429 Mich 887 (1987).