Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JOHN McCURDY, Plaintiff-Appellee, and CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, v INDUSTRIAL EXCAVATING, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED January 6, 1998

No. 197973 Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 93-000080-NI

Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Cavanagh and Markman, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from a judgment entered for plaintiff in the amount of $375,000 and an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, or remittitur. We affirm. Defendant first argues that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence and a new trial should be granted because no testimony was presented contradicting defendant's claim that defendant's employees salted the parking lot to Chrysler's satisfaction. We disagree. We review the trial court's grant or denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. Scott v Illinois Tool Works, Inc, 217 Mich App 35, 41; 550 NW2d 809 (1996). We defer to the trial court's opportunity to hear the witnesses and its unique qualification to assess credibility. Kochoian v Allstate Ins Co, 168 Mich App 1, 11; 423 NW2d 913 (1988). As part of a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed him a duty. Ross v Glaser, 220 Mich App 183, 186; 559 NW2d 331 (1996). Defendant argues that it owed a duty to Chrysler, which it fufilled, but that it did not owe a duty to plaintiff. However, this Court

-1

in Courtright v Design Irrigation, Inc, 210 Mich App 528, 531; 534 NW2d 181 (1995), held that

Download JOHN MCCURDY V INDUSTRIAL EXCAVATING INC.pdf

Michigan Law