Genesee County Circuit Court; Docket No. 84-673-AV; Unpublished
Written Opinion by Judge Philip Elliott
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Trial Procedure Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion regarding an appeal from a jury "no-cause verdict on plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function, Judge Elliott ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial where plaintiff’s counsel did not file a Cassidy motion asking the trial court to rule that the injury was a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. Judge Elliott stated that "I believe I would have granted a pretrial motion if one had been made under Cassidy v McGovern that as a matter of law the broken-leg suffered by this eight-year-old boy was a serious impairment of a body function. Judge Shaker (the district judge) indicated that, probably, he too would have granted such a motion. However, no such motion was made before trial or at the trial and the issue of whether the broken leg was a serious impairment of a body function was submitted to the jury. I conclude that a new trial is not appropriate because of Cassidy, when the trial judge was not asked to rule that the impairment was serious and take the issue from the jury. . . .when a litigant decides to roll the dice on that issue with the jury and the jury verdict is 'snake eyes', the game is over, the gamble has lost A jury can rationally conclude that a rather ordinary broken leg on a child is not a serious impairment of the walking function a jury can so find even of a Judge, under Cassidy, would conclude otherwise."