Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 190127; Published
Judges Hood, Murphy, and Neff; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Neff
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 215 Mich App 248; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Statute of Limitations [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations (MCL 600.5851 – 600.5856)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published Opinion authored by Judge Neff, the Court of Appeals held in this third-party tort case that the three year statute of limitations is tolled during a period of time from the date of an accident until a latent injury is manifested.
The plaintiff was involved in an automobile collision on August 27,1987. No injuries were manifested from the accident until February, 1991, when plaintiff began experiencing pain in her back, shoulder, neck, right arm and right hand, and was diagnosed with a ruptured disc. Her physician testified that it was possible for the plaintiff to have enjoyed good health while her injuries lay dormant, and, further, that plaintiffs injuries were causally related to the automobile accident. The Court of Appeals held in its first opinion (Item No. 1773), that under the circumstances, the three year statute of limitations was tolled. Defendant filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, and in lieu of granting appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the matter in light of its opinion in Stephens v Dixon, 449 Mich 531 (Item No. 1781).
The Court of Appeals noted that in Stephens, the Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations is not tolled where the plaintiff merely misjudges the severity of a known injury. The case at bar was distinguished from Stephens, in that plaintiff here presented unrebuttable evidence that she did not know, nor should she have known, that she sustained any injuries as a result of the automobile accident until February 1991, approximately three and one-half years after the accident, but only one year before she filed her complaint. Accordingly, the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant was reversed.
