Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 57679; Published
Judges Cavanagh, Riley, and Hoehn; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 119 Mich App 747; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Permanent Serious Disfigurement Definition [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion dealing with juror deliberations and verdicts, only tangentially refers to matters arising under the Michigan no-fault law. This case involved a third party tort claim wherein defendant admitted liability and the question presented to the jury was whether plaintiff sustained a threshold injury. Plaintiff’s primary injury was an injury to her thigh which resulted in the development of a fatty tumor which subsequently had to be surgically removed leaving a rather pronounced scar.
The jury was given the special verdict forms for third party no-fault cases contained in SJI2d 67.01, minus the first question dealing with negligence. Utilizing this form, the jury returned to the courtroom with its first inquiry. The jury indicated that it had answered the second question on the form (dealing with the presence of threshold injury) in the negative but asked the Court if they were "to decide on an amount" for plaintiff to receive. At that point, the trial court redrafted the special verdict form so as to separate the elements of serious impairment of body function from permanent serious disfigurement and sent the jury back to continue deliberations.
A short time later, the jury submitted its second question to the Court indicating that they did not consider the plaintiff's scar to be a serious disfigurement but did consider it to be a permanent disfigurement and inquired as to whether or not the word "serious" could be struck from the question. At that point, the Court called the jury back into the courtroom and reread the instructions on permanent serious disfigurement A few minutes later, the jury returned with a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $20,000.00.
In affirming the verdict, the Court of Appeals, with Judge Hoehn dissenting, held that "the only verdict is that which the jury announces orally in court, and which, alone is received and recorded as the jury's findings." Moreover, the Court stated that votes taken in the jury room prior-to the verdict being returned in Court are merely preliminary and are not binding on the jury or the Court. This is consistent with GCR 512.2 and prior case law permitting a juror to recant a previous assent to a verdict any time prior to jury polling.
The Court of Appeals also found no reversible error during closing argument when plaintiff’s counsel responded to a misleading statement by defense counsel that a verdict would have to be paid from the defendant's pocket The Court did not find this to be an improper injection of insurance into the proceedings because it was only raised in response to the attempts of defense counsel to improperly influence the jury with intimations that the defendant was not insured or unable to pay a verdict.
