AMY G BOLTZ V DOUGLAS BLAKEMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
AMY G. BOLTZ,
UNPUBLISHED
July 23, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
RUSS E. BOLTZ,
Plaintiff,
v
No. 229016
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 98-009145-NO
DOUGLAS BLAKEMAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cooper and D.P. Ryan*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff Amy Boltz appeals as of right from a circuit court order denying her motion for
a new trial. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
The trial court may grant a new trial where a verdict is against the great weight of the
evidence or is contrary to law. MCR 2.611(A)(1)(e). The trial court’s ruling on a motion for a
new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Meyer v Center Line, 242 Mich App 560, 564;
619 NW2d 182 (2000). In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, this Court must engage in an indepth analysis of the record. Arrington v Detroit Osteopathic Hosp Corp (On Remand), 196
Mich App 544, 560; 493 NW2d 492 (1992).
Plaintiff presented no evidence of any economic damages; her sole claim was for noneconomic damages for pain and suffering. The evidence showed that plaintiff was bitten by
defendant’s dog and that she sustained minor physical injuries and extensive psychological
injuries. Personal injury damages, particularly those for pain and suffering, are within the sound
discretion of the trier of fact and there is no absolute standard for measuring such damages.
Meek v Dep’t of Transportation, 240 Mich App 105, 122; 610 NW2d 250 (2000).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
Assessing witness credibility is the prerogative of the jury, Kelly v Builders Square, Inc,
465 Mich 29, 40; 632 NW2d 912 (2001), and the jury may disbelieve the most positive evidence,
even when it stands uncontradicted. Strach v St John Hosp Corp, 160 Mich App 251, 271; 408
NW2d 441 (1987), citing Baldwin v Nall, 323 Mich 25, 29; 34 NW2d 539 (1948). Therefore, the
jury is not required to award damages for pain and suffering, even where it finds that the plaintiff
suffered an injury and incurred medical expenses. Kelly, supra at 39. Accordingly, we find the
fact that the jury declined to award plaintiff damages for pain and suffering was not contrary to
law and does not, in and of itself, warrant a new trial.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Daniel P. Ryan
-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.
