This summary also appears under Negligence & Intentional Tort
Issues: Third-party no-fault action; Motion for a mistrial based on defense counsel's question about whether plaintiff had a felony conviction; Waiver; People v. Carter
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: Hunter v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
e-Journal Number: 58192
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Owens, Jansen, and O'Connell
The court held that the plaintiff waived the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial because his attorney expressly approved the curative jury instruction plaintiff now argued was futile. Thus, it affirmed the trial court's judgment of no cause of action entered for defendant-Hines in this third-party no-fault action. Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident that occurred when the vehicle he was driving collided with a vehicle driven by Hines. He voluntary dismissed the defendant-insurer from the case. Hines moved for summary disposition, arguing that "plaintiff was precluded from recovering noneconomic damages pursuant to MCL 500.3113(b) because he was driving an uninsured vehicle at the time of the accident and he was the owner of that vehicle." While the trial court denied the motion, the jury found that "plaintiff was an owner of the uninsured vehicle involved in the automobile accident," making him ineligible to recover noneconomic damages under the No-Fault Act. Plaintiff's only issue on appeal was "whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial where the trial court's curative instruction was insufficient to cure the prejudicial effect of defense counsel's question regarding whether plaintiff had a felony conviction." However, the trial court gave the curative instruction at the request of plaintiff's attorney. "By requesting the specific curative instruction, plaintiff, by action of counsel, affirmatively approved of the instruction, thereby extinguishing any error."
© 2014 State Bar of Michigan