Auto negligence; Tort liability for non-economic loss under the No-Fault Act (NFA); MCL 500.3135; “Serious impairment of body function”; McCormick v Carrier; The injured person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life; “Permanent serious disfigurement”; Fisher v Blankenship

Holding that the record did not establish a question of fact as “to ‘serious impairment of body function’ or ‘permanent serious disfigurement’ for the purposes of MCL 500.3135[,]” the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants in this action under the NFA. The case arose from a vehicle-pedestrian accident. The court agreed with plaintiff (and defendants seemed to concede on appeal) that “the trial court erred by suggesting that the element of ‘affects the injured person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life’ is an element of ‘permanent serious disfigurement.’” But the court agreed with defendants that plaintiff did not create “a genuine issue of material fact regarding either ‘serious impairment of body function’ or ‘permanent serious disfigurement.’” As to the former, the third element was at issue. The injured child (SGM) testified at “her deposition that she was unable to wear her preferred clothes for about two months after the accident because some of her skin was bandaged.” In addition, she indicated “she was unable to ‘hang out with [her] friends as often’ as she preferred during that time. However, these effects of the accident, while unfortunate, were only temporary.” The court found that “a two-month period of having her life affected in such a manner does not rise to the level of significance required by MCL 500.3135(5)(c)[.]” Although a two-month period in some cases may be sufficient, “the mere fact that SGM had to temporarily wear pants and could no longer spend as much time with her friends as she preferred did not affect her ‘general ability’ to lead her normal life.” She also did not identify any other record evidence that her impairment did so. As to a permanent serious disfigurement, the only evidence plaintiff presented “was a single, grainy photograph of SGM’s leg that, upon close inspection, indicates that part of her shin is a different color than the” rest of her leg. The photo submitted to the trial court was apparently “in black and white, rendering it even more difficult to identify whether and to what extent” the leg was scarred. The photo was also undated. The court concluded that it did “not reflect a ‘permanent serious disfigurement’ for the purposes of MCL 500.3135. Even considering the colorized version” of it presented to the court, “the scar merely appears to be a slightly different color than the surrounding skin.” The court found that it was “not conspicuous.”