Phillips v. Mirac6/7/2002
2 or more persons in any 1 accident. [MCL 257.401(3).]
The constitutionality of this damages cap raises a question of first impression.
A. Right to Trial by Jury
In the trial court, plaintiff first challenged the damages cap provision of subsection 401(3) claiming that the statute violates the right under the Michigan Constitution to a jury trial.
Specifically, plaintiff maintained, and continues to maintain on appeal, that subsection 401(3) interferes with the plaintiff's right to have the jury assess damages and that the Legislature may not "whittle away" this right. According to plaintiff, the Legislature, by enacting this provision, has circumvented the jury's award of damages, which "hollows and eviscerates the right to trial by jury, thus rendering its existence one of mere form, and not substance."
To the contrary, defendant contends that subsection 401(3) is constitutional because it constitutes a valid and legitimate exercise of the Legislature's police power. In particular, defendant argues that subsection 401(3) does not violate the right to a jury trial because the Legislature has the authority to abolish or modify rights and remedies, whether they are based on common law or statutes. Defendant further argues that subsection 401(3) does not infringe on the jury's right to determine facts; rather, subsection 401(3) merely limits the legal consequences of the jury's finding. According to defendant, statutory damages caps constitute a legal, rather than factual, determination, and therefore are not subject to the right to a jury trial.
In Michigan, our Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial. In relevant part, the Michigan Constitution provides that " he right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be waived in all civil cases unless demanded by one of the parties in the manner prescribed by law." Const. 1963, art 1, § 14. First, we note that defendant does not challenge that the right to a jury trial extends to an action under the civil liability act of the MVC, MCL 257.401 et. seq. Further, in Michigan the right to a jury trial includes the right to have the jury assess damages. See Wood v DAIIE, 413 Mich 573, 583-584; 321 NW2d 653 (1982); Leary v Fisher, 248 Mich 574, 578; 227 NW2d 767 (1929); Mink v Masters, 204 Mich App 242, 246; 514 NW2d 235 (1994); Equico Lessors, Inc v Original Buscemi's, Inc, 140 Mich App 532, 536; 364 NW2d 373 (1985). Overlaying a plaintiff's right to have a jury decide damages in a suit against the owner of a motor vehicle is subsection 401(3), which the Legislature adopted to limit the amount that a plaintiff may recover against the owner in certain circumstances. Contrary to what the trial court held, we find that this damages cap provision does not infringe on a plaintiff's right to a jury trial for two reasons.
First, our Legislature has the power to abolish or modify common law and statutory rights and remedies. The Michigan Constitution provides that " he common law and the statute laws now in force, not repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations, or are changed, amended or repealed." Const 1963, art 3, § 7; see Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 256, n 14; 596 NW2d 574 (1999) (our Legislature has express constitutional authority to change the common law); Myers v Genesee Co Auditor, 375 Mich 1, 7; 133 NW2d 190 (1965) (O'Hara, J.) (the common law and statutes abide unless "changed, amended or repealed"). Simply stated, what the Legislature gives, it may take away. Lahti v Fosterling, 357 Mich 578, 589; 99 NW2d 490 (1959); Ramsey v Michigan Underground Storage Tank Financial Assur Policy Bd, 210 Mich App 267
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|