Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 238824; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Talbot, and Borrello; 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)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
Trial Procedure Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicalbe
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld verdicts in favor of both plaintiffs who were injured when defendants’ dump truck turned in front of their motorcycle.
In addressing the issue of serious impairment of body function as to Terry Ream, the Court of Appeals held that his injuries, which included soft tissue injuries to his lower right leg and right foot requiring a cast and causing him to be unable to work for two months, satisfied the serious impairment of body function threshold. The court pointed out that an injury does not need to be permanent in order to be serious. The court noted that plaintiff testified he enjoyed his work and that it was an important part of his life. Additionally, Terry Ream also testified concerning multiple facets of his general life affected by the injury, including the fact that he was no longer able to participate in activities as he did before, such as bow hunting, tree stand hunting, playing softball, stream fishing, and walking for long distances. This evidence, in conjunction with Terry Ream’s past and continuing employment limitations, supported the trial court’s determination that Terry Ream suffered a serious impairment of body function under MCL 500.3135(1).
With regard to Linda Ream’s injuries, the Court of Appeals rejected defendants’ argument that the trial court should have stricken physician testimony concerning the “possibility” that Linda Ream would need a future knee or hip replacement because of her injuries. The court held that pursuant to MRE 702, plaintiffs were entitled to present an expert to aid the jury in understanding the evidence or determine a fact at issue, specifically, Linda Ream’s future damages, including the possibility of needing a knee or hip replacement. Merely because the physician admitted that the likelihood of a future knee or hip replacement was somewhat speculative, did not render the testimony inadmissible. The law does not require “impossibilities” and does not require a higher degree of certainty than the nature of the case permits.
