Auto negligence; Serious impairment of an important body function; MCL 500.3135(5); Plaintiff’s ability to lead his normal life

In this case arising out of a motor-vehicle collision, the court reversed the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s claim against defendant-City of Detroit (the City), and remanded. He argued that questions of fact existed “as to whether he suffered a serious impairment of an important body function as a result of the” 8/3/21 collision. The City’s “primary argument in the trial court was that plaintiff failed to make a prima-facie showing as to the second element—that he suffered an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function. This is so, according to the City, because plaintiff did not present any objective evidence of an impairment; rather, he simply chooses not to do certain things because they are now painful.” The court found that this argument failed “to consider all of the evidence in the record, and when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to [him], there is a question of fact whether plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested impairment.” The court held that contrary to the City’s arguments, the evidence he presented “goes beyond demonstrating a mere injury or subjective complaints of pain; the evidence shows that [his] injuries limited his ability to move his neck, right shoulder, and back, and prevented him from doing certain activities.” While he “complained about the pain in his back, neck, and right shoulder, there was a physical basis for plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain (the tear in his shoulder and the herniated discs in his back), and those injuries affected [his] ability to move his back, neck, and shoulder.” The court concluded that viewing the “evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable juror could find that plaintiff presented evidence of an objectively manifested impairment to his back, neck, and shoulder.” Turning to the City’s claim that he “failed to establish that his impairment affected his ability to lead his normal life,” the court found that, accepting the “evidence as true for purposes of resolving the City’s motion, it establishes that plaintiff’s ability to lead his normal life was affected by his impairment.” Finally, the City argued “that the trial court was correct when it concluded that there was no evidence that plaintiff’s injuries (which led to his impairment) were caused by the” 8/3/21 accident. The court held that viewing the “documents in the light most favorable to [him], they tend to establish that the injuries to plaintiff’s back and shoulder were caused by” that accident.