Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77-2507; Published
Judges D. E. Holbrook, Bashara, and Maher; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 86 Mich App 321; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a per curiam decision with a concurring in part, dissenting in parts Opinion by Judge Bashara, the Court made several significant holdings regarding the issue of serious impairment of a body function and trial procedures involving no-fault cases:
1. The majority held that under the decisions in McKendrick and Vitale (itsnumber 19 and 32 respectively) a trial judge has the power to rule "as a matter of law" that the threshold of serious impairment of a body function has been met by the plaintiff’s proofs and those cases should not give that issue to the jury for determination. Just as there is a class of cases (such as Vitale) where "the trial court can rule as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injury is so minor that it fails to reach the threshold, so is there a class of cases in which, as a matter of law, the threshold of serious impairment is reached by the very nature of the injury. . . ." Because the trial judge in this case did not realize that he had this option, the case was remanded. The plaintiff’s injuries herein consisted of a complete break of both bones in the lower right leg with assorted contusions and abrasions.
2. The majority also noted that the language of McKendrick utilized the words "particular body function", thus creating the "important implication" that the injury need not constitute an impairment of the total body function, e.g. through a life sustaining organ such as the heart or liver. Impairment of a particular body function (such as tendinitis of the biceps tendon in the McKendrick case) is sufficient to meet the threshold.
3. The Court also approved the trial judge's instructions which stated that serious impairment of a body function does not require permanency.
4. The Court held that it would be improper to put before a jury the fact that the defendant has limited tort liability by virtue of the fact that the defendant had purchased no-fault insurance. The Court held that even if the no-fault statute had repealed the statutory bar prohibiting injection of insurance into a trial (MCLA 500.3030) mention of insurance be totally irrelevant in such a case and thus prohibited under the rules of the common law.
