Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 181322; Unpublished
Judges Michael J. Kelly, Hood, and Soet; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld a judgment of no cause of action on plaintiffs claim for non-economic damages under §3135.
Plaintiff was injured when defendant accidentally ran over his left foot. Plaintiff testified he was unable to work on a regular basis after the accident, and that he was unable to play the sports he had played prior to the accident. Other testimony in the case indicated that plaintiff had played a vigorous game of basketball after the accident.
A jury found that plaintiff had not sustained a serious impairment of body function required by §3135 of the no-fault act, as a predicate to non-economic damages. On appeal from the jury verdict of no cause and the trial court's denial of JNOV, the Court of Appeals upheld the jury's verdict.
The Court of Appeals held that the issue of serious impairment of body function is properly before the jury when reasonable minds could differ as to the seriousness of the injury, regardless of the nature or extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. In this case, the defense presented evidence to show that plaintiff’s injuries were not serious because of the activities he engaged in, such as playing basketball. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for JNOV.
The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defense counsel had improperly and intentionally interjected statements regarding the amount that plaintiff received in no-fault benefits, even though it was irrelevant and highly prejudicial information. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that it was error for defense counsel to mention the dollar amount that plaintiff received, but because there was no evidence that the jury verdict was not supported by the evidence in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for a new trial because of this harmless error.
