Appeal from Wayne, James Montante, J.
V. J. Brennan, P. J., and Bashara and R. M. Maher, JJ.
1. Automobiles -- Negligence -- Sudden Emergency -- Instructions to Jury.
An instruction to the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine is proper where there is any evidence to support a finding that an emergency existed within the doctrine; therefore, a defendant was entitled to an instruction on sudden emergency where there had been testimony that the plaintiff was standing in an expressway exit lane when struck by defendant's automobile, because that circumstance could be deemed by the jury to be unusual or unsuspected.
2. Automobiles -- Negligence -- Instructions to Jury -- Passing on Right -- Statutes.
Failure of a trial court to instruct the jury in an automobile negligence case on the statute regulating passing on the right is not error where no evidence was presented to indicate that the defendant driver was "overtaking and passing" when he struck the plaintiff while using an exit lane to leave an expressway (MCLA 257.637; MSA 9.2337).
3. Jury -- Verdict -- Adequacy of Verdict -- New Trial -- Appeal and Error.
A jury's verdict is entitled to considerable respect and will not be reversed unless reasonable minds could not disagree; a verdict for a plaintiff which is adequate and warranted by the proofs is not a basis for a new trial.
4. Trial -- Judges -- Discretion -- Reply Argument -- Rebuttal Argument -- Court Rules.
A trial Judge has broad power and discretion concerning the conduct of the argument before the jury and a plaintiff was properly denied rebuttal argument on the issue of the extent of damages where the Judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the issue of the extent of damages had not been discussed by the defendant in his reply argument (GCR 1963, 507.6).
5. New Trial -- Motions -- Newly-Discovered Evidence -- Cumulative Evidence -- Reasonable Diligence.
A plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence was properly denied where the evidence was cumulative and where the plaintiff has failed to convince the Court of Appeals that with reasonable diligence he could not have discovered and produced the evidence for trial.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Brennan
Complaint by Josif Bugar and Marioara Bugar against John L. Staiger and Dennis R. Bronner for damages arising from an automobile accident. Judgment for plaintiffs as to defendant Staiger, and ...