Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #318253; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Sawyer, and Markey; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (McCormick Era: 2010 - Present) [§3135(5)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving plaintiff’s negligence claim against the driver of a vehicle that struck him, the Court of Appeals held the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim because there was no evidence that the accident caused or aggravated the injuries about which plaintiff complained.
Defendant’s car collided with plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff brought a negligence claim against defendant, asserting the accident caused him to suffer various injuries. Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff did not suffer an injury resulting in serious impairment of a body function under MCL 500.3135(1). The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding the evidence did not demonstrate that a question of fact existed about whether the accident caused plaintiff to suffer an impairment. The trial court then denied plaintiff’s motion for rehearing and reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim. The court held:
“In sum, plaintiff presented no evidence to show that the accident caused his symptoms or aggravated his preexisting injuries. Id. It was plaintiff’s burden to ‘demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute.’ … Because plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he suffered an objectively manifested impairment resulting from defendant’s negligence, the court did not err in granting summary disposition for defendant.”
