Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 44507; Published
Judges Allen, Cavanagh, and Simon; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 98 Mich App 100; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
This decision was a subsequent appeal in the case summarized in item number 108. In this opinion, the Court unanimously affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the question of serious impairment of body function. Liability was admitted and the case was submitted to the jury on the sole issue of whether or not the plaintiff had sustained a threshold injury. The jury found in favor of the defendant
In affirming the trial court's refusal to grant a directed verdict, the Court stated that "the proper test for determining whether a motion for directed verdict should be granted is whether reasonable men could reach different conclusions from the facts taken in light most favorable to defendants." The fact that the jury rejected plaintiff’s position indicated that reasonable minds could differ. The injuries involving this case consisted of complete breaks of both bones in the lower right leg requiring plaintiff to wear four different casts on his leg over an eight month period.
Judge Cavanagh filed a separate concurring opinion wherein he referred to his concurrence in the case of Watkins v City Cab (item number 316). He stated that "the vagueness of the phrase serious impairment of body function warrants its determination as a matter of law only where the injury squarely falls on either end of the spectrum. Anything in between should be left to the determination of the trier of fact." In Judge Cavanagh's Opinion, he could not see how reasonable minds could differ that these injuries satisfy the threshold. However, the jury verdict proved that they could.
