Corrigan, J. would grant reconsideration and says:
I would grant defendant's motion for reconsideration of this Court's order reversing the Court of Appeals grant of a new trial. In this age discrimination case, the trial court erroneously denied defendant's pretrial motion to exclude references to defendant's corporate wealth and power. See Reetz v. Kinsman Marine Transit Co, 416 Mich. 97, 110-112 (1982). Plaintiff's counsel seized on the trial court's error and commented on this irrelevant subject in opening statement, stating that defendant was "a private empire of this Mr. Hubner," a "company making good money throughout the time [plaintiff] was employed there," a company that had a "good profit margin," and a company that was "doing very well financially." Plaintiff's counsel repeatedly returned to the theme during closing argument, stating among his numerous improper remarks that plaintiff's discharge was a "brutal act of corporate cruelty," and that defendant made $20,000,000 dollars or "blockbusting money." He repeatedly stressed that "greed" was pervasive and urged the jury to "[t]hink about the brutality, think about the greed and tell `em that you're not going to allow it to happen in a language that they understand" and "[s]peak in a language they understand — money."
This Court's remarks in Reetz, supra at 111, are equally applicable to the instant case:
The effect of these comments was to create in the minds of the jurors an image of [defendant] as an unfeeling, powerful corporation controlled by a ruthless millionaire. Even a juror who harbored no prejudice against corporations or millionaires might have been swayed by these inflammatory remarks to alter his view of the evidence.
Our prior cases should have made clear that even isolated comments like these are always improper, even if not always incurable or error requiring reversal. However, when, as in this case, the theme is constantly repeated so that the error becomes indelibly impressed on the juror's consciousness, the error becomes incurable and requires reversal.
Therefore, I would vacate this Court's order and deny plaintiff's application for leave to appeal because the Court of Appeals properly took into account the circumstances of this case in reversing the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial.
Weaver, J., joins in the statement of Justice Corrigan.