Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Thayer v Vanderlip; (COA-UNP, 6/26/1987; RB #1065)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 88535; Unpublished  
Judges Sawyer, McDonald, and Szymanski; Unanimous; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt    


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function As a Matter of Law (DiFranco Era – 1987-1995) [§3135(1)]  
Bystander Claims [§3135]

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable    


CASE SUMMARY:  
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's determination that a bystander's claim for emotional injury damages based upon viewing of another's physical injuries requires that the bystander meet the serious impairment of body function threshold.

In this case, Dale Thayer claimed damages for "negligent infliction of emotional distress" based upon his observation of his severely injured son moments after his son had been struck by an automobile. Plaintiff argued that so long as the injuries of his son met the threshold, it was not necessary for his emotional distress injuries to also meet the serious impairment threshold. Plaintiff argued that his damages were analogous to derivative recovery for consortium, which is recoverable without regard to the serious impairment threshold. [See Rusinek v Schultz, (Item No. 534)].

The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument and held that the person sustaining mental distress must establish that the injuries constituted a "serious impairment of body function." The Court cited the earlier decision of Luce v Gerow, (Item No. 172), in which a passenger sought to obtain recovery for mental injury resulting from her witnessing injuries sustained by another occupant of her vehicle. The Luce court held in that case that a claim for mental distress was actionable under the No-Fault Act, but the court indicated therein that the serious impairment standard was directly applicable to the plaintiff’s mental distress. Unlike consortium, the bystander claim premised upon viewing another's physical injuries is a direct action for recovery of damages sustained by the claimant; it is entirely independent of the claim for physical injuries.

In light of the recent decision of DiFranco, the Court of Appeals vacated the entry of summary disposition and remanded for further proceedings in conformity with DiFranco.


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 SinasDramis.com.

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

FacebookInstagram