Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 251225; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Sawyer, and Markey; 2-1(Judge Murphy dissenting); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Trial Procedure Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motions for directed verdict, new trial, and JNOV in a case where the jury found that plaintiff’s injury constituted serious impairment of body function, but refused to award damages for non-economic loss. In holding that this result did not mandate a new trial or reversal, the court stated:
“Proof of a serious impairment is merely a tort threshold that a plaintiff must overcome before he may attempt to prove damages. Even if a person’s ability to lead his life has been affected, a plaintiff must nevertheless prove that he suffered non-economic damages as a result. Consequently, the jury’s finding that Lisa Nault suffered a serious impairment of bodily function but no noneconomic damages is not logically inconsistent. . . . Although there was evidence that Lisa Nault suffered noneconomic damages, there was also evidence that she could resume normal functions within weeks after her injury. The jury was entitled to accept the latter version of events. When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, reasonable jurors could have concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove noneconomic damages. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying both plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial and plaintiffs’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”
