STEVEN J WALKER V FORD MOTOR CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
STEVEN J. WALKER, Personal Representative of
the estate of NICHOLAS JAMES WALKER,
deceased
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 200362
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 94-420988 NP
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Smolenski, P.J. and White and Markman, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring)
I agree with the majority’s resolution of the juror misconduct issue.
Regarding the jury selection issue, although I do not agree that the trial court’s action was
proper, I concur because I conclude that plaintiff waived the issue by failing to object at the time the
court sua sponte excused juror Jeffries, and by affirmatively stating that he “was not asking for a
mistrial” after defense counsel stated that that would be the appropriate remedy. Had the objection
been made at the point the court announced its decision to excuse the juror, the court would have been
alerted to plaintiff’s objection to the court taking the action at that time, and the juror could have been
retained on the jury, or other alternatives could have been discussed. Further, a mistrial was an
appropriate remedy at the point plaintiff objected. The court was not obliged to grant an additional
peremptory challenge, but could have declared a mistrial. Plaintiff was not entitled to choose his
remedy, and waived the issue by insisting on one particular remedy.1
Regarding the issue involving defendant’s expert witness and plaintiff’s motion for new trial, I
conclude that the denial of re-cross did not affect the outcome of the trial, and therefore reversal is not
warranted.
-1
/s/ Helene N. White
1
I recognize that the court later stated that neither an additional peremptory challenge nor a mistrial was
appropriate, but this was in the context of plaintiff having only asked that the court consider granting an
additional peremptory challenge, and having rejected the mistrial option.
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.