
    KUJAWSKI v. BOYNE MOUNTAIN LODGE.
    1. Appeal and Error — Instructions—Review.
    The trial court’s charge to the jury will be considered in its entirety, and if it fairly presents the questions involved for jury determination in a wrongful death action, the verdict will not be disturbed.
    2. Same — Jury Instructions.
    A eharge to the jury meets the requirements to pass appellate review if it gives a fair presentation of questions involved and if requested instructions were given in substance.
    3. Death — Evidence.
    Evidence presented in action for wrongful death from fall down defendant’s stairway held, sufficient to support jury’s verdict for plaintiff.
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1,2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 891, 894.
    [3] 22 Am Jur 2d, Death •§§ 241-243.
    Appeal from Charlevoix, Brown (Charles L.), J.
    Submitted Division 3 April 2, 1968, at Grand Rapids.
    (Docket No. 441.)
    Decided June 10, 1968.
    Application for leave to appeal dismissed August 14, 1968, by stipulation.
    Declaration by Edward Kujawski, administrator of tbe estate of John S. Kujawski, Sr., deceased, against Boyne Mountain Lodge, Inc., a Michigan corporation, for wrongful death of the decedent caused by a fall on defendant’s stairway. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial by Court of Appeals. Plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court.
    Reversed, and remanded to Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Verdict and judgment of circuit court affirmed by Court of Appeals.
    
      Norman D. Anee and Charles H. Menmuir, for plaintiff. • ■
    
      Martin B. Breighner and Benjamin V. Halstead, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

Pursuant to the remand by the Supreme Court, this cause has been resubmitted to the Court of Appeals for decision of the questions raised': on the original appeal but not considered by this Court in its opinion found at 3 Mich App 333. Pacts pertinent to present decision are found in 3 Mich App 333, 334, 335. The questions not formerly considered all deal with jury instructions given or requested but not given and with the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict for plaintiff.

The rule on appellate review of jury instructions is that, the trial court’s charge to the jury will be considered in its entirety, and, if it fairly presented the questions involved for jury determination, the verdict will not be disturbed. Zebell v. Krall (1957), 348 Mich 482. A review of the charge here involved convinces us that it complies with the rule, and that requested instructions allegedly not given were given in substance.

A review of the trial record discloses evidence, which, if believed by the jury, supports its verdict. Affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

Burns, P. J., and Quinn and Ziem, JJ., concurred. 
      
      
         Kujawski v. Boyne Mountain Lodge, Inc. (1967), 379 Mich 381.
     