Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 96429; Published
Opinion by Justice Brinkley; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 449 Mich 531; Link to Opinions 
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 unanimous Opinion by Justice Brickley, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals (Item No. 1622), and held that in an ordinary negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the cause of action accrues for purposes of the statute of limitations when a prospective plaintiff first knows or reasonably should know he or she is injured. The discovery rule applies to the discovery of an injury, not to the discovery of a later realized consequence of the injury. The Supreme Court declined to adopt the interpretation of the "discovery rule" contained in Mielke v Waterman, 145 Mich App 22 (1985) (Item No. 861), which held that accrual of a cause of action in a motor vehicle accident case did not occur until the plaintiff could allege all of the essential elements of the cause of action, including the element requiring that the plaintiff have sustained a serious impairment of body function. The Supreme Court held that discovery of an injury, not its attainment of some threshold status, commences the running of the statute of limitations.
In this case, plaintiff was in a motor vehicle accident on June 23, 1987 She was not initially hospitalized, having sustained contusions and abrasions. She experienced muscle pain and stiffness throughout her body, including her neck. These conditions resolved themselves within a period of weeks.
In February 1989, more than 20 months after the original accident, plaintiff began to experience mild neck pain. It increased in severity over the course of several months. In December 1989, plaintiff sought medical attention, and her condition was diagnosed as spondylolysis of the neck vertebrae at C-4, C-5 and C-6. Plaintiff alleged that her spondylolysis was a latent condition associated with her motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff underwent surgery for this condition on February 23,1990 and subsequent surgery on April 30, 1990.
Plaintiffs action for damages alleging serious impairment of body function was not commenced until 40 months after the original accident The circuit court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition based upon the provisions of MCLA 600.5805(8). The Court of Appeals, in reversing the circuit court, held that the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations where a plaintiff alleges a "latent injury" but not where a plaintiff misjudges the severity of an injury. The case was remanded for a hearing at which the plaintiff was to be given the opportunity to persuade the circuit court to apply the discovery rule to these facts. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the court interpreted the statute of limitations and application of the discovery rule in the context of ordinary negligence actions arising from motor vehicle accidents. The Supreme Court held that the discovery rule is not available in a case of ordinary negligence, where a plaintiff merely misjudges the severity of a, known injury. The court noted that many months after the accident, but still within the three year statute of limitations period, plaintiff experienced neck pain that increased to the point that medical attention was required. Plaintiff knew more than three years before she filed suit that she had suffered a neck injury as a result of the motor vehicle accident A simple negligence cause of action accrues when a prospective plaintiff first knows or reasonably should know she is injured. Here, plaintiffs cause of action accrued on June 23,1987 when she was involved.in an automobile accident and knew that her neck was injured. The court rejected plaintiffs contention that her cause of action did not accrue until February, 1989,20 months after her accident, when she began to experience neck pain. The court held that the addition of an "injury threshold element" in vehicular, ordinary negligence cases would corrupt the purpose of the statute of limitations. The court held that the discovery of an injury, not its attainment of threshold status, commences the running of the statute of limitations.
