Under Michigan’s current No-Fault Act, liability for non-economic loss suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident is limited to situations where an injured party produces sufficient evidence of a threshold injury under MCL 500.3135. MCL 500.3135(1) specifically limits tort liability to situations where an injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of a body function, or permanent serious disfigurement. A serious impairment of body function is defined as “an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life.” MCL 500.3135(5).
Piccione v Gillette, to be published Court of Appeals Case Number 342826, (Decided January 17, 2019) involved a three year old who broke his clavicle in an automobile accident. The parents brought a third party negligence claim on the minor’s behalf against the at fault driver. The at fault driver moved for summary disposition arguing that the three year olds injury did not constitute a serious impairment of a bodily function because his injury required minimal treatment, only restricted his life for a short period of time, and because he was not physically restricted as a result of the injury. The trial court agreed with the defendant’s argument finding that since the child was able to return almost entirely to his pre-accident life, the injury did not rise to the level of a serious impairment of a bodily function.
The trial court’s decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals which found that the fact that the child’s impairment eventually healed had “no bearing on the question at hand” because a serious impairment of body function does not have to be permanent. In their decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the three year old was unable to go to school for two weeks because of the injury and when he returned to school he was unable to use the play equipment. They also noted that because of the injury, his parents had to help him go to the bathroom, and get dressed, and that he was more cautious about physical activities after the accident. Accordingly, the court found this testimony was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the injury affected the three year olds ability to lead his normal life that precluded summary disposition.
Read more about our expertise in personal injury actions and Michigan's No-Fault Act.
About the Author
