By By JOHN EBY / Dowagiac Daily News
The Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury verdict in a Cass County Circuit Court lawsuit which resulted from a Feb. 24, 2003, crash.
Lauren Jean Deisler and her mother, Joyce E. Kirkdorfer, appealed the decision favoring Jesse James Lutz and Thomas Lutz, who owned the Jeep Wrangler driven to school at 6:45 a.m. on that dark, rainy morning.
Jesse Lutz testified that as he rounded a curve in an unlit neighborhood, bright headlights from another vehicle blinded him.
His vehicle struck Lauren, 12, who was crossing the road to reach her bus stop.
Lauren had been dropped off across the street from her bus stop by her stepfather, Kim Kirkdorfer.
Lutz testified he slammed on his brakes and saw Lauren lying on the road, illuminated by his headlights.
He called 911 from a nearby home.
Emergency workers on the scene were unable to collect evidence due to rainy conditions and a crowd that gathered, but they found the defendant's vehicle parked just over the center line.
Lauren suffered serious injuries that required several operations and physical therapy and caused her to miss two months of school.
At the end of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action in Lutz's favor.
Plaintiffs argued that the trial court improperly refused to give several requested standard and special jury instructions.
Judges Henry William Saad, Michael R. Smolenski and Jessica R. Cooper disagreed.
Plaintiffs also contended that the trial court improperly excluded lay and expert opinion testimony.
Plaintiffs challenged the trial court's exclusion of the lay opinion of Tammy Sobczak-Barbour that the defendant was driving too fast for the road and weather conditions.
Her "testimony related only to her theoretical opinion regarding safe speeds under the conditions," the judges wrote. "Her opinion was not based on her actual perception of defendant's actual speed at the time of the accident. As her opinion was merely theoretical and speculative, it could not give the jury a clear understanding of whether defendant was actually driving too fast for the road and weather conditions that morning. Accordingly, the trial court properly excluded this testimony."
Plaintiffs also argued that the trial court improperly excluded Dr. Daniel Lee's testimony about what defensive strategies Lutz should have taken to avoid the accident. The Court of Appeals concluded excluding the qualified expert in accident reconstruction and traffic safety's answer to a hypothetical question was improper, but a "harmless" error.
"Dr. Lee testified about the strategies that should be used under poor driving conditions similar to the morning of the accident, including strategies to avoid being blinded by oncoming headlights. The jury naturally would have applied this testimony to defendant's conduct," the judges stated. "Accordingly, the trial court's error does not require reversal."