Auto negligence; Statutory duty under MCL 257.683(1), MCL 480.11a, 49 CFR § 392.7(a), & § 393.205(a); Wood v Detroit; JNOV on duty, breach, factual cause, & proximate cause; Craig ex rel Craig v Oakwood Hosp; Superseding cause; Auto Owners Ins Co v Seils; Damages; Conscious pain & suffering; MCL 600.2922(6); Byrne v Schneider’s Iron & Metal, Inc

The court held that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition, properly denied JNOV, and did not abuse its discretion by denying remittitur. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s delivery truck had a cracked wheel and that a piece of metal from the wheel came through decedent’s windshield, causing fatal injuries. After trial, the jury found defendant negligent, allocated 60% fault to defendant and 40% to the towing defendants, and awarded damages including $2 million for conscious pain and suffering. On appeal, the court held that defendant owed statutory duties under MCL 257.683(1), MCL 480.11a, 49 CFR § 392.7(a), and § 393.205(a). It explained that MCL 257.683(1) was designed to prevent “harm caused by unsafe conditions on a vehicle” and that cracked-wheel regulations likewise protected motorists and passengers. It found sufficient evidence of breach and causation, including testimony that the truck was unsafe, the wheel cracks were or could have been visible, used wheels had been installed, and lug nuts were tightened incorrectly. The court also rejected defendant’s superseding-cause argument, reasoning that the towing company’s conduct could be found merely negligent, not grossly so, and thus did not break causation. As to remittitur, the court held that the jury could infer conscious pain and suffering from testimony that decedent was “gasping for air,” that consciousness “is a gradation,” and that he could feel pain and a sense of suffocation before death. Affirmed.