First-party no-fault action; Motion for partial directed verdict on the issue of whether plaintiff sustained an accidental bodily injury; Whether plaintiff should be granted a new trial; MCR 2.611

The court held in this first-party no-fault action that while the trial court erred in not granting plaintiff’s motion for partial directed verdict, he did not provide a sufficient basis for granting a new trial. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s judgment of no cause of action in favor of defendant-State Farm. Plaintiff argued “that the trial court erred by failing to grant his partial directed verdict motion on the issue of whether [he] sustained an accidental bodily injury because that issue was not actually in dispute in this case.” While the court agreed “that the trial court erred by failing to grant the partial directed verdict, plaintiff has failed to provide a sufficient basis for overturning the jury’s verdict in this matter.” It noted that it “is ‘reluctant to overturn a jury’s verdict where there is ample evidence to support the jury’s decision, and will do so only where [this Court] is satisfied that allowing the verdict to stand would be inconsistent with substantial justice.’” MCR 2.611(A)(1) sets forth the grounds for granting a new trial. Yet plaintiff did not cite MCR 2.611, he made no argument as to why he was “entitled to a new trial under any of the bases delineated in that court rule, and” he failed to assert “that his substantial rights were materially affected.” The court held that “even though the trial court erred by denying the partial directed verdict, we cannot find that plaintiff’s substantial rights were materially affected under MCR 2.611. Thus, under the very unique facts” here, the court could not hold that he “satisfied the legal requirements for granting a new trial.”