Auto negligence; Serious impairment of an important bodily function; MCL 500.3135(1) & (5); McCormick v Carrier; Causation; Comparative fault; MCL 500.3135(2)(b); Presumption of negligence; MCL 257.402(a); The sudden emergency doctrine; White v Taylor Distrib Co, Inc; Independent medical exam (IME)

The court held that the trial court erred by granting defendant summary disposition on the basis plaintiff failed to establish a threshold injury, but did not err by denying his motion for summary disposition as to whether plaintiff was more than 50% negligent. Plaintiff sued for injuries he sustained in an auto accident. The trial court found plaintiff failed to show he suffered an objectively manifested impairment, and granted defendant summary disposition on that ground. However, because it found a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff was more than 50% negligent (because there was a dispute as to where defendant’s vehicle was stopped), it denied defendant’s motion on the basis of comparative fault. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff as to the trial court’s ruling on the threshold injury issue, noting that “while there may be an issue of fact whether the accident exacerbated plaintiff’s back problems, there is no genuine issue of material fact, considering the record as it stood when the trial court granted summary disposition to defendant, the accident caused plaintiff’s objectively manifested postconcussive syndrome and traumatic brain injury.” In addition, the trial court’s determination plaintiff “failed to establish an objectively manifested impairment seemed to rest entirely on its determination plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between the accident and his injuries. Causation is an issue distinct from the threshold injury analysis, and it appears the trial court conflated the two requirements when making its decision. However, it is worth considering the issue of causation, because, if the trial court was correct that plaintiff failed to establish causation,” granting defendant summary disposition would be harmless error. The court concluded the second IME “unequivocally stated plaintiff’s injuries were either caused by, or exacerbated by, the accident. While the first IME disagrees, this disagreement creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation that is reserved for the jury. The trial court impermissibly weighed the evidence by failing to consider the second IME to the same extent as the first IME.” Finally, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion for summary disposition as to whether plaintiff was more than 50% negligent. Whether “defendant was lawfully standing on the freeway is, as is the case of whether plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the accident, and by what percentage, a disputed genuine issue of material fact.” Reversed and remanded.