1. Did the court of appeals manifestly err in affirming the trial court's erroneous order that denied plaintiff his constitutional right to a jury trial under us const am 7 and 1963 mich const, art. 1, sec. 14 by dismissing his case with prejudice as a sanction on the ground that plaintiff was not present in the courtroom on the morning of the date of the jury trial without considering any of the factors set forth in vicencio v ramirez, 211 mich app 501; 536 nw2d 280 (1995).

Did the court of appeals err in denying plaintiff's right to a jury trial