Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #258036; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell; Sawyer, and Murphy; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era - 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law [3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition and motion for directed verdict on the issues of liability in this automobile accident case, and the resulting jury verdict in favor of the defendant.
This case involved disputed facts concerning the right-of-way at a traffic signal. Although a driver may have a green signal, he is required to surrender the right-of-way to authorized emergency vehicles that are sounding their sirens and flashing their lights. Considering the facts of this case in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the defendants, the trial court properly concluded material fact questions existed where there was various and conflicting evidence with respect to vehicle speed, the need, legal or otherwise, to yield or stop, the ability to yield or stop, line of vision, and whether the parties were aware or should have been aware of each other, all of which could lead reasonable jurors to reach different conclusions regarding the negligence of the parties and the degree of negligence. Therefore, the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition regarding liability and plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict.
Although the plaintiff also contends the trial court erred by refusing to grant summary disposition or directed verdict on the issue of “serious impairment of body function” under §3135, given the jury’s conclusions with regard to liability, this issue is “moot.”
Plaintiff also contended the trial court erred by submitting two verdict forms (apparently one for the plaintiff and the other for his wife) which plaintiff argued required the jurors calculate his negligence twice, thus confusing the jurors and resulting in a finding of 75% plaintiff fault with respect to the wife’s injuries, but only 55% fault as to the plaintiff’s injuries. Because plaintiff did not object to the form, the court held this issue was waived. Further, there was nothing in the record suggesting the jurors were confused by the trial court’s instructions or the verdict forms.
