Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 206044; Unpublished
Judges Gribbs, Griffin, and Wilder; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
Trial Procedure Issues [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not commit error in refusing to allow plaintiff to amend his pleadings to state a claim outside of the No-Fault Act wherein plaintiff would allege that under the provisions of MCLA 691.1405, the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity, plaintiff was not subject to the tort limitations imposed by section 3135 of the No-Fault Act.
In this case against the County of Oakland and its Deputy, the court first addressed the issue of whether or not the governmental employee/deputy operating a patrol vehicle over the posted speed limit and colliding with the rear of plaintiff s vehicle, should have been dismissed from the case for lack of evidence of "gross negligence" as required by the Government Tort Liability Act, MCLA 691.1407. The court held that reasonable minds could not differ that the deputy's conduct, as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, while negligent, was not so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether injury would result.
The court next addressed plaintiff’s claim that he should have been allowed to amend his complaint to allege the "motor vehicle exception" to governmental immunity under MCLA 691.1405, and that such a claim would not have been subject to the tort limitations of section 3135 requiring proof of serious impairment of body function. In addressing this claim, the court held that the standard under which liability is imposed under MCLA 691.1405 is furnished by section 3135 of the No-Fault Act. The plain meaning of the more recently enacted no-fault statute clearly encompasses governmental liability arising from its ownership of a motor vehicle.
The court further held that the issue of plaintiff s alleged serious impairment of body function consisting of cervical and lumbar muscle strains and pinched nerves was properly submitted to the jury under the DiFranco test.
