Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


CLARENCE E. DOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v WILLIAM C. DAVIS and BUTTON'S RENT-IT, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED October 1, 1996

No. 186994 LC No. 87-340866-NI

Before: Markman, P.J., and McDonald and M. J. Matuzak,* JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from a judgment granting plaintiff $7,500, plus interest in the amount of $6,908.11 in this personal injury action brought against defendants, William Davis and Button's RentIt. We reverse and remand. We initially note that this case is before this Court for a second time. In Doster v Davis, unpublished amended opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 14, 1994 (Docket No. 144516), we reversed and remanded to the trial court for a new trial, after finding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial because the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence regarding causation. Subsequently a new trial was held and the jury returned a verdict of $7,500, plus interest in the amount of $6,908 in favor of plaintiff for past pain and suffering. The jury, however, refused to award plaintiff any damages for future pain and suffering, and the trial court later denied plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial or, in the alternative, additur. Plaintiff first contends that the trial court erred when it allowed defendants to cross-examine plaintiff on statements contained in two police reports relating to successive accidents in which he was involved and then refused to admit the reports in their entirety.1 We agree.

* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

We review a trial court's decision whether to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion. Price v Long Realty, Inc, 199 Mich App 461, 466; 502 NW2d 337 (1993). The use of a police report at trial constitutes hearsay. Moncrief v Detroit , 398 Mich 181, 189; 247 NW2d 783 (1976). The proponent of a police report is required to lay a foundation that shows that the report comes within an exception to the hearsay rule "before [it] [can] be admitted into evidence, read into the record, or read to the fact finder by a witness in the course of testimony. Id. The admission of a police report into evidence in a civil trial is "subject to the limitation of MCL 257.624; MSA 9.2324." MRE 803(8). That statute provides in relevant part: (1) A report required by this chapter shall not be available for use in a court action, but a report shall be for the purposes of furnishing statistical information regarding the number and cause of accidents. [MCL 257.624; MSA 9.2324.] The only two exceptions to MCL 257.624; MSA 9.2324 recognized by the courts are where the officer merely testifies to "physical facts [he] observed at the scene of the accident and admissions made to [him] by the drivers." Webster v Central Paving Co, 51 Mich App 62, 64-65; 214 NW2d 707 (1974). Neither of these exceptions are pertinent to the instant case. Here, the actual police reports were not admitted into evidence. However, statements from the reports

Download CLARENCE E DOSTER V WILLIAM C DAVIS.pdf

Michigan Law