DAVID MOTSINGER V K-MART CORPORATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DAVID MOTSINGER, Personal Representative
of the Estate of SAMUEL J. MOTSINGER, JR., Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
January 17, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 188380
LC No. 93-328984
K-MART CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and J.R. Weber,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the judgment of no cause of action entered in favor of defendant
following a jury trial in this pharmacy malpractice case. We affirm.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant alleging that, because one of defendant’s pharmacists
negligently misfilled a prescription for decedent, defendant caused decedent’s death from multiple drug
overdose. Plaintiff claimed that the misfilled prescription caused decedent to become confused, which
then led to his accidentally taking too much medication, causing his death. Defendant admitted to
negligently misfilling the prescription; however, defendant claimed that its negligence was not the
proximate cause of decedent’s death in that decedent purposely committed suicide.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert testimony
comparing the effects of a medication decedent received while in the hospital to t e effects of the
h
medication which was misfilled, because the testimony was not relevant. We disagree.
We review a trial court’s evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. Koester v Novi, 213
Mich App 653, 663; 540 NW2d 765 (1995). Relevant evidence is evidence that has any tendency to
make the existence of a fact at issue more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence. Where evidence goes to support or challenge a party’s theory of the case, it is relevant.
Because testimony comparing the effects of a similar drug which decedent received while in the hospital,
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
to the effects of the medication misfilled was relevant to support defendant’s theory of the case and
disprove plaintiff’s theory, we find that the evidence was relevant. Id. Therefore, we hold that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this testimony into evidence.
Next, plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial
on the basis that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, and on the basis that the court
committed an error of law in admitting the testimony comparing the two medications. We disagree.
We review a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. Scott v Illinois Tool Works,
217 Mich App 35, 40-41; ___ NW2d ___ (1996); Phillips v Mazda Motor Mfg, 204 Mich App
401, 410-411; 516 NW2d 502 (1994). Because the record indicates that evidence was presented to
support either side, and because we have previously determined that the trial court properly allowed in
testimony comparing the two medications, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying plaintiff’s motion. Scott, supra at 40-41.
Finally, plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion in conducting the voir dire.
Because plaintiff failed to object below or state his dissatisfaction with the jury, plaintiff failed to
preserve this issue for appellate review. People v Bell, 209 Mich App 273, 278; 530 NW2d 167
(1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ John R. Weber
-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.
