Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.


Paisley v Waterford Roof Truss, Ltd. and Hollingsworth; (USD-PUB, 7/11/1997; RB # 1954)


United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Docket No. 96-40223;    
Honorable Paul V. Gadola; Published   
Official Federal Reporter Citation:  968 F Supp 1189; Link to Opinion alt    

Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]   
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]   
Causation Issues [§3135]   
Evidentiary Issues [§3135]

Not Applicable    

In this written Opinion by Judge Gadola dealing with a third party liability claim for non-economic loss, the court rendered two holdings. First, the court held that plaintiff had offered sufficient evidence to create a question of fact with regard to plaintiff’s claim of serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff’s injuries primarily consisted of soft tissue injuries to the neck and shoulder, and an injury to the temporomandibular joint. Plaintiff treated with a chiropractor, a dentist and as an outpatient at Henry Ford Hospital. The court held that under DiFranco v Pickard [Item No. 978), a reasonable juror could conclude that these injuries constituted serious impairment of body function. Second, the court ruled that plaintiff had not offered sufficient evidence with regard to causation. Referring to the plaintiffs theory of how the accident happened as something that "defies all logic not to mention physics," Judge Gadola granted summary disposition in favor of defendant. In the case at bar, plaintiff claimed that he was injured when a piece of cement flew through his windshield as a result of falling off of a truck. Plaintiff claimed that the piece of metal protruding from the bottom of the truck, caused concrete to be thrown upward from the road, onto the top of plaintiff s truck, and then backwards into the plaintiffs windshield. Even plaintiffs counsel referred to the theory as "surmise and speculation," Under these circumstances, Judge Gadola ruled that there was insufficient evidence on causation to submit the case to the jury and granted summary disposition in favor of defendant.

Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)