Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cole v. Eckstein

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided October 18, 1993No. Docket 141711Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurphy, J.

I agree with the holding of the majority opinion that the testimony of Donna Eckstein regarding the speed of plaintiffs car at the time of the accident was properly admitted. I also agree with the majority opinion that the jury instruction in question was inapplicable and should not have been given in this case. I dissent from the majority opinion to the extent that the majority holds that the instructional error was harmless.

The decision to give a particular instruction to the jury is within the discretion of the trial court. Williams v Coleman, 194 Mich App 606, 623; 488 NW2d 464 (1992). If…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Johnson v. WhiteMichigan Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Reisman v. Regents of Wayne State UniversityMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Duke v. American Olean Tile Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Kovacs v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. Wiegerink v. Mitts & MerrillMichigan Court of Appeals · 1990

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API