15th Judicial District Court; Docket No. CIV-20456; Unpublished
Judge George W. Alexander
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a bench trial, District Judge Alexander found as a matter of fact that Plaintiff’s fractured ankle was not a serious impairment of a bodily function as defined in §3135 of the no-fault statute. The Judge held that the term serious impairment of a bodily function must be defined in light of the legislative intent in enacting the no-fault statute, and that in his view, the legislature "intended" to replace the traditional tort recovery mechanism with a system by which a person's own insurance company reimbursed him for his losses in automobile accidents without regard to fault," and that traditional tort remedies would be available only in those extraordinary cases where the injured person cannot be sufficiently compensated by receipt of no-fault benefits. In light of that premise, the judge held that "the injury should be shown to be extraordinary or unusual either in severity, duration of impairment, or affect upon the victim. . . ." before a tort recovery is permitted. The judge did permit Plaintiff, however, to recover property damages for his damaged motorcycle in light of the Court of Appeals decision in Shavers v Attorney General, 65 Mich App 355.
