Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PAULA MILTGEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v PAUL BERNARD MILTGEN, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED October 11. 1996

No. 171545 LC No. 91-072850-NI

Before: Doctoroff, C.J., and Hood and Bandstra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court's judgment awarding her $14,000 in this third-party no-fault action. We affirm. On February 5, 1990, plaintiff, who was eighteen years old, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her father, defendant Paul Miltgen (defendant). While driving plaintiff home from a pom-pom practice at her school, defendant made a left turn in front of an oncoming vehicle driven by John Mast on Five Mile Road, a four lane highway, in Plainfield Township. There was evidence that defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Witnesses generally testified that Mast was traveling near the speed limit and could not have done anything to avoid the accident. As a result of the accident, plaintiff suffered a mild to moderate closed head injury and a cervical neck fracture. On May 29, 1990, following a practice for her high school graduation ceremony, plaintiff was a passenger in the rear seat of a vehicle driven by Tammy Schneider. While proceeding north on Monroe Street in downtown Grand Rapids, a car driven by defendant Robert Gillette hit their car while making a U-turn. As a result of the accident, plaintiff broke her neck. A "halo" device was placed on her head, held on with four pins screwed into her head. Plaintiff wore the halo for four months, and then wore a neck brace for six months. Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for injuries she sustained in the February 5, 1990 automobile accident. Plaintiff also brought suit against defendant Gillette for injuries she sustained in the May 29, 1990 automobile accident. The cases were consolidated. Following a twelve-day jury trial, plaintiff was awarded $14,000 in non-economic damages against defendant, and $6,000 in non
-1

economic damages against Gillette. The jury found that plaintiff was not entitled to any economic damages for work-loss from either defendant. The jury also determined that plaintiff was three percent negligent for her failure to wear a seat belt. Plaintiff moved alternatively for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, or additur in the amount of $150,000. The court denied plaintiff's motions. We initially note that plaintiff has raised several claims relating to defendant Gillette. Plaintiff, however, has not claimed an appeal of the judgment against defendant Gillette in lower court docket no. 91-072961-NI, the case with which this case was consolidated below. This Court has jurisdiction to decide issues relating only to the judgment against defendant Miltgen in lower court docket no. 91 072850-NI, which is the case appealed. This Court does not have jurisdiction to decide issues relating to the lower court case that has not been appealed. MCR 7.203(A)(1); People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 538; 531 NW2d 780 (1995). We therefore decline to address plaintiff's claims relating to defendant Gillette. Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in restricting evidence of her work-loss to her $4.75 wage level attained while she worked at Design I and Hair Tech and in precluding the testimony of Roy Welton that she would have earned between $420,000 and $504,000 as a cosmetologist over the course of her forty-two year work life ,but for the injuries she suffered as a result of the automobile accident. We disagree. Work-loss is not restricted to an injured person's wage level at the time of injury where she can show convincingly that she would have earned a higher income. MacDonald v State Farm Mutual Ins Co, 419 Mich 146, 151; 350 NW2d 233 (1984); Kirksey v Manitoba Public Ins Corp, 191 Mich App 12, 16; 77 NW2d 441 (1991). Where the fact of damage is not established, the question of the amount of damage is not reached. See, generally, 22 Am Jur 2d, Damages,

Download PAULA MILTGEN V PAUL BERNARD MILTGEN.pdf

Michigan Law