Negligence; Postaccident conduct; Flight evidence; Johnson v Austin; Motion in limine; Adjournment; MCR 2.503; Mistrial; Attorney misconduct; Motion for a new trial; Remittitur; MCR 2.611(E)(1); Noneconomic damages; Palenkas v Beaumont Hosp

The court held that the trial court did not err by: 1) admitting evidence of defendant-driver’s postaccident conduct, 2) denying defendants’ requests for an adjournment or mistrial, 3) denying a new trial based on plaintiff’s counsel’s closing argument, or 4) refusing remittitur of the jury’s $20 million noneconomic-damages award. Plaintiff’s decedent was snow blowing his driveway when the driver lost control of defendant-company’s van, crossed the roadway, struck him, and left before police arrived. On appeal, the court first held that evidence the driver left the scene without providing contact information was relevant because it tended to show he knew he had “done something wrong,” which was pertinent to breach of duty in the negligence claim. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying an adjournment after the driver failed to appear during trial because there was “no evidence demonstrating where [he] was or the reason for his absence” and no guarantee he would appear after a brief delay. It deemed defendants’ mistrial argument waived because the ground argued on appeal differed from the ground raised below. As to the new-trial motion, the court acknowledged that some closing-argument references were irrelevant or improper after liability was stipulated, including references to the driver’s flight, lack of apology, subsequent remedial measures, and professional-athlete salary comparisons. But it held that defendants did not show they were denied a fair trial because the jury was instructed that counsel’s arguments were not evidence, the verdict was well below plaintiff’s suggested figures, and the record supported the award. Finally, the court held that remittitur was not warranted because the evidence showed catastrophic injuries, chronic pain, multiple surgeries, likely future surgeries, and a long-term loss of quality of life, making the $5 million past and $15 million future noneconomic-damages award within the range reasonable minds could deem just compensation. Affirmed.