Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


WILLIAM STEVENS and MATHILDA STEVENS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v MACKINAC ISLAND CARRIAGE TOURS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and CHAMBERS RIDING STABLE, INC., Defendant.

UNPUBLISHED May 26, 2005

No. 253211 Mackinac Circuit Court LC No. 00-005018-NO

Before: Murray, P.J., and O'Connell and Donofrio, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs, William and Mathilda Stevens, appeal by right from the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, Mackinac Island Carriage Tours, Inc.1 Plaintiffs brought suit after William Stevens was thrown from a horse rented to him by defendant. Plaintiffs allege that defendant was grossly negligent in outfitting the horse with defective reins that broke when the horse bucked, causing William Stevens to be thrown from the horse and injuring his shoulder.2 We affirm.

1

Defendant, Chambers Riding Stable, Inc., was dismissed as a defendant by stipulation of the parties. Mathilda Stevens seeks additional damages from defendant for loss of consortium.

2

-1-


Plaintiffs' first issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly excluded a photograph of Mr. Stevens taken while he was on the horse before the accident. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the photograph. The trial court's decision to admit evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Katt, 468 Mich 272, 278; 662 NW2d 12 (2003). The trial court has abused its discretion if an unprejudiced person, considering the facts on which the trial court acted, would say that there was no justification or excuse for the ruling made. People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 419; 608 NW2d 502 (2000). Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible. MRE 402; Ellsworth v Hotel Corp of America, 236 Mich App 185, 188-189; 600 NW2d 129 (1999). However, even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. MRE 403; Waknin v Chamberlain, 467 Mich 329, 334; 653 NW2d 176 (2002). Unfair prejudice exists when there is a tendency that the evidence will be given undue or preemptive weight by the jury. Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175, 199; 670 NW2d 675 (2003). In this case, plaintiffs allege that the reins had broken previously and that defendant had knotted them back together to keep them in use. Plaintiffs offered the photograph to show that the reins had been knotted together before the accident. However, the photograph was taken from several feet away and is of poor quality, making it impossible to determine from the photograph whether the reins were knotted together. Therefore, the photograph's probative value as to the existence of a knot is minimal. Moreover, allowing in the photograph could mislead a jury into believing that it depicts a knot in the reins, even though it is unclear what the photograph actually depicts. Because the photograph has little probative value and is potentially misleading, a jury could give it undue weight in determining the existence of a knot, which could reasonably be viewed as making the photograph unfairly prejudicial. Lewis, supra at 199. Because there is justification for the trial court's ruling that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, it cannot be said to have abused its discretion in excluding the photograph. Snider, supra at 419. This decision does not discount plaintiffs' argument that the picture, coupled with William Stevens' testimony regarding the reins' condition after his fall, warrant a jury considering the photo. This is a plausible argument, but because there was also justification for the trial court's decision, we must affirm. Pe

Download WILLIAM STEVENS V MACKINAC ISLAND CARRIAGE TOURS INC.pdf

Michigan Law