U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Case No. 09-14783; Unpublished
Judges Robert H. Cleland, U.S. District Judge; Opinion and Order
Official Federal Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion (N/A)
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(7)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(2)]
Applicability of Comparative Fault to Noneconomic Loss Claims [§3135(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
In this Opinion and Order by Judge Cleland regarding plaintiff’s threshold claims for non-economic losses, the Court denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary disposition on the threshold issue of serious impairment because the Court concluded that a question of fact remained as to whether the plaintiff’s injuries affected her general ability to live her normal life. The Court also denied defendant’s cross-motion for summary disposition on the issue of whether plaintiff was more than 50% at fault such that her claim was barred under MCL 500.3135(2)(b) because it was uncontested that the plaintiff was facing away from defendants truck when she was struck and that defendant did not sound his horn as he approached her, which gave rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff was in fact comparatively negligent.
The plaintiff in this case suffered severe injuries which the Court described as “severe injuries to her legs and lower body," requiring “extensive treatment” after she was struck by defendant’s commercial truck while standing in a truck stop gas station parking lot. The accident occurred as defendant was attempting to back his truck into a parking space where the plaintiff was standing. As he began to back up, the defendant observed the plaintiff standing on the running boards of another truck (parked adjacent where he intended to park) in order to speak to its driver. Shortly thereafter, the defendant failed to notice that the plaintiff alighted from the other truck and proceeded to dust herself off while standing in the parking space where he was attempting to park. The defendant then struck the plaintiff and she suffered the aforementioned injuries.
Following the accident, plaintiff brought suit in Wane County and the matter was removed to federal court based on the diversity of the parties. In bringing suit, the plaintiff alleged that she was standing off to the side of the parking space where defendant was attempting to park, to which defendant responded that plaintiff was located in his blind spot. The Court further noted that the defendant did sound his horn while backing up. Subsequently, the parties filed cross-motions for summary disposition. The defendant moved for summary disposition on the issue of whether plaintiff was more than 50% at fault such that her claim was barred under MCL 500.3135(2)(b), and plaintiff moved for partial summary disposition on the issue of whether she suffered a serious impairment of a body function as a matter of law under MCL 500.3135(1) and (7). The Court denied both parties’ motions.
As it relates to defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the issue of plaintiff’s comparative fault, the Court concluded based on the evidence that there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent: In reaching this result, the Court reasoned:
“Here, the evidence is equivocal as to the relative fault of the parties. It is uncontested both that Plaintiff was facing away from [Defendant]'s truck when struck and that [Defendant] observed Plaintiff on Matt's truck at some point before the injury. The facts not in dispute do not so favor either party that any issues of fact bearing on the level of Plaintiff's fault could not be genuine. Therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate”
In deciding plaintiff’s partial motion for summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment, the Court applied the new standard for determining whether a plaintiff has suffered a threshold injury that the Michigan Supreme Court established in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010)(RB #3135). The Court then noted that both the parties agreed “that plaintiff's injuries meet the first two criteria: 'an objectively manifested impairment' and 'of an important body function.' The only remaining issue is whether Plaintiff's impairment is one 'that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life.' The Court then explained “[t]his issue ‘requires a subjective, person- and fact-specific inquiry’ to determine whether Plaintiff's ‘normal life has been affected.’”
After applying the foregoing principles, the Court went on to find that a question of fact remained as to whether the plaintiff’s injuries affected here general ability to lead her normal life -- finding it, however, to be a “close call.” In this regard, the Court reasoned:
"Plaintiff has clearly suffered temporary and perhaps permanent physical impairments that will impede her in undertaking ordinary tasks, such as walking normally and doing household chores. (Pl. Mot. 17.) Defendants respond that Plaintiff's situation has not substantially worsened because she can still engage in the same general activities after the injury. (Def. Resp. 10.) Defendants' contention that the injuries "helped Plaintiff jettison the lifestyle that caused her injuries in the first place" will not itself bar Plaintiff from recovering if damages are proven. (Def. Resp. 10). Since the determination of this remaining issue will depend heavily on facts of the Plaintiff's life and because the same facts will be relevant to the determination of the extent of Plaintiff's injuries, the court will conclude there is a genuine issue of material fact for the jury to determine."
Therefore, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary disposition on the issue of whether she suffered a threshold injury.
