Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 242205; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Neff, and Murray; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant on the issue of serious impairment of body function.
The trial court found that plaintiff had not established that the impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Plaintiff claimed that his injuries affected his familial, recreational, and sex life activities. He also claimed that he could not perform the same job as before the accident.
In upholding the trial court’s grant of directed verdict in favor of the defendant, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly concluded that plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life had not been affected.
Primarily based upon his own testimony, plaintiff admitted he was able to engage in his prior recreational, familial, and sex life activities. He admitted he was still able to hunt with a bow and firearm every year, continued to fish in both lakes and streams, continued to take his family camping each year, and set up the tent and campsite. He also had fathered two children since the accident. Further, he admitted driving 24 hours to Florida to go fishing. He further admitted that he still took care of his three children and did many, if not all, of the household duties he performed before the accident. With regard to his work, plaintiff admitted he had worked at American Bumper for only six months before his injuries, and previously had worked in three different jobs that he would consider to be of the “light duty” type that the doctors permitted him to perform since the accident.
Based upon this evidence, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly granted a directed verdict to the defendants.
