Waiver of defects in the jury instructions & verdict forms; Varran v. Granneman (On Remand); Walters v. Nadell; Johnson Family Ltd. P’ship v. White Pine Wireless, LLC; Whether grounds for a new trial were established; MCR 2.611(A)(1); MCR 2.612(C); Principle that generally only one recovery is allowed for an injury; Grace v. Grace; Actual damages in tort cases; Hannay v. Department of Transp.; Exemplary damages; B & B Inv. Group v. Gitler; McPeak v. McPeak; Shaw v. Ecorse; Presumption jurors follow their instructions; Lenawee Cnty. v. Wagley; Reluctance to overturn a jury’s verdict; Clark v. Kmart Corp. (On Remand)

The court held that defendants “waived any defects in the jury instructions and verdict forms in this matter by affirmatively agreeing to all of them before the jury was charged in the trial court.” Also, the record did not support the trial court’s decision to disturb the jury’s decision and the court was satisfied that the verdict was not inconsistent with substantial justice. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant-Nolan a new trial. Plaintiff argued that Nolan “failed to establish any ground for a new trial and that the trial court abused its discretion by granting” him one on grounds that he never raised. Plaintiff also argued “defendants waived these arguments by affirmatively agreeing to all instructions and jury verdict forms utilized.” Plaintiff further claimed “that the trial court abused its discretion by basing its decision on unfounded presumptions that the jury awarded plaintiff a double recovery because of its exemplary damages instruction.” The court agreed that the trial court abused its discretion by disturbing the jury’s verdict. The trial court held a conference with the parties as to “the jury instructions and the verdict forms to present to the jury for their determination of the issues presented in this case. After that conference, the trial court required the parties’ placement on the record their affirmation of their approval of the instructions and verdict forms. Each defendant affirmed his satisfaction with the instructions and verdict forms. After the trial court instructed the jury and explained the verdict forms’s use to them, the trial court asked each party if he had any issue with the instructions given to the jury.” The parties “confirmed their respective approval of the instructions and the verdict forms provided to the jury.” In so doing, they “voluntarily and intentionally relinquished their respective rights to claim any error regarding the jury instructions and the verdict forms, and they waived any right to seek a new trial on the ground that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury or provide them an adequate verdict form. Their waivers extinguished any claim of error.” Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the jury’s verdict.