Instructions
M Civ JI 41.01 Two or More Defendants—Separate Consideration—Repeating Instructions
M Civ JI 41.02 Damages Where There is No Allocation of Fault Between Defendants
M Civ JI 41.03 Multiple Parties and Pleadings Where Jury May Not Be Able to Apportion Damages [Instruction Deleted]
M Civ JI 41.04 Damages Not to Be Allocated Among Joint Tort-Feasors [Instruction Deleted]
There are [number] defendants in this trial. Each defendant is entitled to separate consideration of [his / or / her] own defense. I shall not repeat my instructions for each defendant. Unless I tell you otherwise, all instructions apply to each defendant.
Note on Use
The use of this instruction will tend to eliminate repeating instructions on behalf of two or more defendants on issues and questions of law applicable to more than one defendant. It is recommended that this be given either before or after M Civ JI 7.01 Issues for the Jury and Theories of the Parties, in the discretion of the judge.
Exception: In cases of claimed vicarious liability in which the relationship of the defendants is admitted or exists as a matter of law, this instruction should not be given.
Comment
The Michigan Supreme Court has not considered the specific question of repetition of instructions due to more than one party’s being present in the case. But see Hayes v Coleman, 338 Mich 371; 61 NW2d 634 (1953); Mack v Precast Industries, 369 Mich 439; 120 NW2d 225 (1963).
History
If you find one of the defendants to be liable, you shall determine the amount of damages [he / or / she] caused and return a verdict in that amount. If you find more than one of the defendants to be liable, you shall return a separate verdict for the amount of damages you determine each defendant caused.
Note on Use
This instruction should be used only if defendants caused factually separable injuries. Defendants who cause factually separable injuries are liable only for the injuries they cause and the jury should determine separate damages. Rodgers v Canfield, 272 Mich 562; 262 NW 409 (1935). This instruction does not apply in cases of vicarious liability or joint liability. (For discussion of the abrogation of joint liability in most cases see comment to now-deleted M Civ JI 43.01A Contribution among Tort-feasors by Relative Fault.)
Even if defendants have caused factually separable injuries, the jury may be required to allocate fault between one of the defendants and the plaintiff or a named nonparty. MCL 600.2957, .6304. If an allocation of fault is required, the jury’s verdict will not be for the damages caused by that defendant, as this instruction states. Instead, the court will determine that defendant’s damages based on the allocation of fault. MCL 600.6306. In such cases involving both factually separable injuries and allocation of fault, modifications of both this instruction and M Civ JI 42.01 Allocation of Fault of Parties may be given.
Where there is an issue about whether defendants caused factually separable injuries, modifications of both this instruction and M Civ JI 42.01 may be given.
History
Comment
This instruction was deleted because allocation of fault between defendants and others in a lawsuit based on tort or other legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death is required by MCL 600.6304, and the trial judge then assesses damages against defendants based on the allocation of fault (MCL 600.6306). (Prior to its amendment by 1995 PA 249, the section requiring an allocation of fault applied only to “personal injury actions.”)
History
Comment
This instruction was deleted because even in cases in which joint liability has not been abolished, allocation of fault between defendants and others in a lawsuit based on tort or other legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death is required by MCL 600.6304. (Prior to its amendment by 1995 PA 249, the allocation of fault section applied only to “personal injury actions.”) Joint liability was not abolished in medical malpractice actions in which the plaintiff is determined to be without fault (MCL 600.6304(6)(a)), and cases in which the defendant is found liable for an act or omission that constitutes one of enumerated crimes (MCL 600.6312).
Also, this instruction was deleted because even in joint liability cases, it is the judge, not the jury, that is given the role of assessing damages against defendants in accordance with MCL 600.6306.
History