Burt Holt v. Amarild Ushe
330076
Mich. Ct. App.May 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Burt Holt, a truck driver, was struck by the rear tires of a truck driven by Amarild Ushe (employed by Reliable) while standing between inspection lanes at Containerport Group Inc. (CPG); he suffered severe, lifelong injuries.
- Holt sued Ushe and Reliable for negligence; Ushe/Reliable filed a notice of non-party fault blaming CPG and later pleaded third-party fault; Holt amended to add CPG negligence.
- A jury found Ushe/Reliable 50% at fault, CPG 40%, and Holt 10%, awarding large non-economic damages (total judgment about $17.37 million, reduced by 10%).
- Defendants moved for remittitur/new trial (claiming excessiveness), objected to admission of an indemnity reference and a notice of non-party fault, and challenged verdict as against the great weight of evidence.
- The trial court denied post-trial relief; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, assessing evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, expert testimony, and cumulative-error claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive non-economic award / remittitur | Award supported by extensive evidence of chronic pain, TBI, depression, multiple surgeries, and permanency | Award is wildly disproportionate compared to similar cases and influenced by passion/prejudice; due process concern | Affirmed: award supported by record; trial court did not abuse discretion; no evidence of bias or improper advocacy warranting remittitur |
| Admissibility of indemnification evidence and notice of non-party fault | Indemnification evidence shown to explain witness bias and shifting positions; notice used as admission of facts | Indemnification is like insurance (inadmissible); notice of non-party fault is not a pleading and inadmissible as an admission | Indemnification testimony admissible for bias; admitting notice of non-party fault as a pleading was error but harmless because defendant testified to same allegations |
| Verdict against great weight of evidence / comparative negligence | Holt’s testimony and expert evidence support allocation (10% fault) | Holt was on cell phone, in path of wheels, not visible, and knew trucks move — verdict against evidence | Affirmed: ample competent evidence supports jury’s apportionment; credibility issues for jury; no reversible error in expert testimony or instructions on memory loss |
| Jury instructions / verdict form / other instructions (mitigation, eggshell plaintiff, aggravation) | Standard instructions appropriate; damages and pre-existing condition instructions supported by record | Instructions/ form unduly emphasized comparative fault; should have given mitigation instruction; verdict form misleading | Affirmed: instructions were standard and appropriate; mitigation instruction unnecessary on record; verdict form not misleading; cumulative-error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Palenkas v. Beaumont Hosp., 432 Mich. 527 (trial court best positioned to assess excessiveness)
- Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749 (excessive verdicts may stem from inflammatory advocacy; due process concerns discussed)
- Heaton v. Benton Const. Co., 286 Mich. App. 528 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Silberstein v. Pro-Golf of Am., Inc., 278 Mich. App. 446 (remittitur exercised with restraint)
- Larion v. City of Detroit, 149 Mich. App. 402 (alternative pleadings and pleadings as admissions)
- O'Dowd v. Linehan, 385 Mich. 491 (historical limits on expert fault testimony; later clarified by MRE 704)
- Ruddock v. Lodise, 413 Mich. 499 (expert opinion embracing ultimate issue may be admissible under MRE 704)
- Freed v. Salas, 286 Mich. App. 300 (accident reconstruction testimony on fault permissible)
- Allard v. State Farm Ins. Co., 271 Mich. App. 394 (deference to jury and factfinder on great-weight claims)