From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harrington v. Velat

Supreme Court of Michigan
Nov 25, 1975
395 Mich. 359 (Mich. 1975)

Summary

In Harrington, supra, plaintiff sued defendants Detroit police officers and the City of Detroit for assault and battery, false imprisonment, and violation of civil rights arising out of plaintiff's arrest.

Summary of this case from Farm Bureau Ins v. Sears, Roebuck

Opinion

Docket No. 57171.

Decided November 25, 1975.

Lawrence W. Rattner for plaintiff.


MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury returned an inconsistent verdict in an action against police officers and the City of Detroit alleging assault and battery, false imprisonment and violation of civil rights arising out of plaintiff's arrest.

The jury found the officers not guilty but awarded plaintiff-husband $2,000 for physical injuries against the City of Detroit. Since the city's liability was derivative, the verdict was inconsistent. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for new trial and "corrected" the jury's verdict to read no cause of action against the City of Detroit. The Court of Appeals in a memorandum opinion affirmed.

This Court, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), reverses the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remands this matter to the circuit court for a new trial.

The trial judge in a civil case can correct a verdict which is defective or erroneous as to a mere matter of form not affecting the merits or rights of the parties so as to give effect to what the jury unmistakably found. 76 Am Jur 2d, Trial, § 1208.

However, the general rule is that where a verdict in a civil case is inconsistent and contradictory, it will be set aside and a new trial granted.

"Ordinarily, a verdict may and should be set aside and a new trial granted where it is self-contradictory, inconsistent, or incongruous, and such relief should, as a rule, be granted where more than one verdict are [sic] returned in the same action and they are inconsistent and irreconcilable." 66 CJS, New Trial, § 66, pp 197-198.

Accord, Bias v Ausbury, 369 Mich. 378; 120 N.W.2d 233 (1963); 58 Am Jur 2d, New Trial, § 129, pp 335-336. See Bartholomew v Walsh, 191 Mich. 252, 261-262; 157 N.W. 575 (1916).

T.G. KAVANAGH, C.J., and WILLIAMS, LEVIN, M.S. COLEMAN, J.W. FITZGERALD, and LINDEMER, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Harrington v. Velat

Supreme Court of Michigan
Nov 25, 1975
395 Mich. 359 (Mich. 1975)

In Harrington, supra, plaintiff sued defendants Detroit police officers and the City of Detroit for assault and battery, false imprisonment, and violation of civil rights arising out of plaintiff's arrest.

Summary of this case from Farm Bureau Ins v. Sears, Roebuck
Case details for

Harrington v. Velat

Case Details

Full title:HARRINGTON v VELAT

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Nov 25, 1975

Citations

395 Mich. 359 (Mich. 1975)
235 N.W.2d 357

Citing Cases

Farm Bureau Ins v. Sears, Roebuck

Defendant Sears' liability to plaintiff Hill was clearly a question for jury determination and no motion for…

People v. Lewis

In a civil case, when the verdict is inconsistent, a new trial is ordered. See Harrington v Velat, 395 Mich.…