|
No. 133988
| Dorothy Minter, |
|
Mark McKay Grayell |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Kent - Sullivan, P.) |
|
|
| City of Grand Rapids and John Edward-Rheem |
|
Catherine M. Mish |
| Wetzel, |
|
|
| Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition of Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Supplemental Brief>>
Background
Dorothy Minter, who was 67 years old, was crossing a street in Grand Rapids on foot when she was hit by a police car driven by Grand Rapids Police Officer John Wetzel. There is no dispute that the accident was Wetzel’s fault. As a result of the accident, Minter sustained a closed head injury, as well as injuries to her right great toe and cervical spine. She also has a scar on her forehead above her right eye. Minter filed a third-party no-fault action against Wetzel and the city of Grand Rapids under MCL 500.3135, seeking to recover noneconomic damages. Minter alleged that she suffered serious impairment of body function and permanent serious disfigurement. A “serious impairment of body function” is “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(7). In Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109, 131 (2004), the Michigan Supreme Court stated that “Although some aspects of a plaintiff’s entire normal life may be interrupted by the impairment, if, despite those impingements, the course or trajectory of the plaintiff’s normal life has not been affected, then the plaintiff’s ‘general ability’ to lead his normal life has not been affected and he does not meet the ‘serious impairment of body function’ threshold.” The defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that the evidence did not establish that Minter suffered a serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement; as a result, Minter was not entitled to recover noneconomic damages, the defendants contended. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed Minter’s lawsuit. In a divided published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Minter did not sustain serious impairment of body function in relation to the toe and cervical spine injuries. The Court of Appeals majority held, however, that there is a question of fact whether Minter suffered a serious impairment of body function in relation to her closed head injury. Likewise, the Court of Appeals majority held that there is a question of fact whether Minter suffered permanent serious disfigurement in relation to the scar on her forehead. The dissenting judge concluded that the issue was one of law, for the trial court to decide, and that the trial court correctly applied Kreiner to the facts of this case. The defendants appeal.
Top of Page
|
