Learn more about Sinas Dramis

Injured? Contact us for a free consultation

   

Jones v Bossenbrook; (COA-UNP, 9/19/1991; RB #1508)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 117709; Unpublished  
Judges Gillis, Weaver, and Doctoroff; Unanimous; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt  


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
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)] 
Trial Procedure Issues [§3135]

TOPICAL INDEXING:  
Not Applicable   


CASE SUMMARY:  
In this per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court determination that the jury's verdict that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious impairment of body function was not against the great weight of the evidence.  

The Court of Appeals did not indicate in their opinion the nature of the injuries sustained by plaintiff Ford Orlo Jones. In affirming the jury's verdict that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious impairment of body function, the Court of Appeals reiterated the rules set forth in DiFranco that the question must be submitted to the trier of fact whenever the evidence would cause reasonable minds to differ as to the answer. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly submitted the question of whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function to the jury, and the jury's verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence.  

Copyright © 2019 Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)