Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 114678; Published
Per Curiam Opinion; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 461 Mich 561; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era – 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the no-fault threshold requirements for pursuing a claim for noneconomic damages under the No-Fault Act are applicable when the defendant is a governmental agency being sued under the vehicle exception to the governmental immunity act. In so holding, the court rejected plaintiffs argument that proof of threshold injury is not necessary in suits against governmental vehicle owners for the reason that the governmental liability provisions of MCLA 691.1405 do not indicate that proof of threshold injury is a necessary element in holding a governmental agency liable. In rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court focused on the specific language of section 3135(1) of the Michigan No-Fault Act which clearly indicates that the tort liability provisions of the no-fault act control and take precedence over the provisions of the governmental immunity act. In this regard, the court stated:
"The apparent conflict is readily resolved by resort to the plain language of these provisions. Subsection 3135(2) of the no-fault act, which contains the partial abolition of tort liability, opens with the introductory clause, 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law 'On its face, therefore, this measure reflects the Legislature's determination that the restrictions set forth in the no-fault act control the broad statement of liability found in the immunity statute. For this reason, the circuit court was correct when it ruled that the plaintiff was required to meet the no-fault thresholds—in this instance that he was required to show serious impairment of body function — in order to prevail in his suit for noneconomic damages caused by the deputy's negligence."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the circuit court and the Court of Appeals.
