Auto negligence; Serious impairment of body function; MCL 500.3135(1) & (5); McCormick v Carrier; Governmental immunity Motor vehicle exception (MCL 691.1405); Intermediate School District (ISD)

The court affirmed the trial court’s determination that defendant-Macomb ISD was not entitled to summary disposition in this case arising from an accident involving a school bus. As an initial matter, the court concluded that to the extent the trial court relied on information solely provided in certain proposed affidavits, it erred, and the court declined to consider the affidavits. It also would “not consider the documents that plaintiffs have submitted with their brief on appeal that were not introduced in the lower court record.” Regardless, it found that “plaintiffs raised a genuine question of material fact about whether they suffered serious impairments of body function.” Plaintiff-Stewart “raised a genuine question of material fact about whether he suffered an objectively manifested impairment of body function by presenting evidence that he was experiencing muscle spasms and reduced range of motion.” Likewise, plaintiff-Whitson “presented evidence of muscle spasms and reduced ranges of motion.” In McCormick, the “Supreme Court held that the plaintiff presented evidence of a broken ankle and symptoms that were perceivable as impairing body functions, including ‘ankle pain and a reduced range of motion.’” Macomb ISD contended that they “could not establish a causal relationship between the crash and the diagnostic testing results.” The court held that “plaintiffs raised questions of fact through their testimonies and medical records, including [a doctor’s] notes that related plaintiffs’ injuries to the crash.” The court noted that “Macomb ISD did not contest in the lower court or on appeal that important body functions were at-issue in this case.” Thus, the next consideration was “whether plaintiffs demonstrated a genuine question of material fact about whether the impairments affected [their] general abilities to lead their lives.” The court determined that there was “a question of fact about whether the impairments affected plaintiffs’ ability to engage in their employment.” Also, Stewart “testified about the impairments affecting his ability to engage in sports and socialization.” Finally, because they “raised questions of fact about their bodily injuries, the trial court did not err by determining that Macomb ISD was not entitled to governmental immunity.”