Court Opinion

ID: 9676353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:22:35.266217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:47.938531
License: Public Domain

M. Warshawsky, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this matter. I do not agree that the jury verdict was so grossly inadequate and so contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to shock the conscience.
Although plaintiffs Exhibit 19, which calculated *782plaintiffs damages, was received into evidence by stipulation of defense counsel, the record does not support a conclusion that defendant stipulated to the accuracy or veracity of the exhibit or to the amount of plaintiffs damages. See Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co v Wood, 165 Mich App 9, 18; 418 NW2d 408 (1987).
On cross-examination, plaintiff testified that he derived no income from his construction company in 1984 and 1985, but that he earned approximately $4,000 to $5,000 in 1986. However, when asked whether he had any financial statements to verify the income derived in 1984, 1985, and 1986, plaintiff indicated that he did not.
The mere fact that plaintiff testified in this regard did not "conclusively and irrefutably” establish plaintiff’s damages as uncontroverted. See Moore v Spangler, 401 Mich 360, 375; 258 NW2d 34 (1977). The jury was free to disbelieve plaintiff, and it appears they were not impressed as to his candor. The jury sat on this case for five days and had ample opportunity to evaluate the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses. We are thus bound to afford considerable respect to the jury verdict. Moore, supra, p 378.
Accordingly, I conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for additur or new trial.
I would affirm the circuit court.