Auto negligence; Whether plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function; MCL 500.3135(1); McCormick v Carrier

Holding that plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her injuries impacted her general ability to lead her normal life, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiff sued defendants for injuries she sustained in a car accident. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ summary disposition motion because it “failed to look at the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff and” assessed the credibility of her evidence instead of allowing a jury to do so. “[P]laintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether her injuries impacted her general ability to lead her normal life . . . .” The only evidence she provided to support her claim “was an unnotarized, undated, and digitally signed affidavit.” The affidavit alleged she “had been in ‘reasonably good health’ and participated in ‘most of the usual activities of life’ before the accident, but the accident left her unable to live that same life.” She also believed “her injuries from the accident prevented her from attending family functions, enjoying time with friends, performing housework or yardwork, going up and down the stairs, and driving for periods of time, and she alleged that she now relied on the help of others to take care of herself and her home. [She] provided a signed, dated, and notarized copy of her affidavit on appeal, but she did not provide the copy in her response brief or any copy in her motion for reconsideration.” Because her “only evidence of the accident’s impact on the ability to lead her normal life in the trial court proceedings was an unsworn statement that this Court cannot consider, it is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”