Klanseck v. Anderson Sales & Service, Inc
393 N.W.2d 356 · Michigan Supreme Court · 1986
Facts
Plaintiff Stephen Klanseck, an inexperienced rider without a motorcycle endorsement, crashed his newly purchased motorcycle when its front tire deflated. He sued the seller, alleging a defect, but the jury found him 60% comparatively negligent, partly due to his lack of endorsement and failure to mitigate damages by not following medical advice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
Issue
1. Was it error for the trial judge to instruct the jury that it could infer negligence from the plaintiff's failure to obtain a motorcycle endorsement? 2. Was it error for the court to instruct the jury regarding the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages when evidence showed he did not follow his physician's recommendations?
Holding
The court held that both jury instructions were proper. It affirmed that an inference of negligence from a licensing statute violation is permissible when driver incompetence is a causal issue, and a mitigation instruction is warranted when evidence shows a plaintiff did not follow medical advice. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.
Rule
Where evidence raises an issue regarding a driver’s incompetence or inexperience as a causal factor in an accident, a jury may be instructed to infer negligence from the violation of a licensing statute, and then decide if such negligence was a proximate cause. An injured party has a duty to exercise reasonable care to minimize damages, including obtaining proper medical treatment, and an instruction on mitigation is proper if supported by evidence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.