|
No. 132385
| Douglas D. Jones, |
|
Gregory P. Jahn |
Plaintiff-Appellee |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wexford - Corwin, C.) |
|
|
| Kathleen P. Olson and Todd R. Olson, |
|
Christine D. Oldani |
| Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendants-Appellants' Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Defendants-Appellants' Supplemental Brief>>
Background
Douglas Jones was injured in a car accident on August 1, 2003, when Kathleen Olson pulled in front of him as Jones entered an intersection where he had the right of way. Jones was taken to a hospital, where he complained of neck and back pain; doctors diagnosed him with a fractured vertebra in his neck. Jones later sued both Kathleen Olson and Todd Olson, the owner of the car. Jones, a construction worker who normally worked 40-hour weeks, testified in his deposition that he could not engage in his normal activities, including hunting, playing softball, doing yard work, or taking long walks with his girlfriend. For two months, he did not have intimate relations with his girlfriend; he had difficulty getting dressed, feeding himself, and caring for his child, he stated. After undergoing physical therapy, Jones improved; a February 12, 2004, progress report stated that he could return to heavy construction work for three hours per day on weekdays, or two days per week, increasing to full-time over the following two to four weeks. Jones did not return to work until March 2004, due to the seasonal nature of his job. When he returned to work, he was not limited by any restrictions. Jones testified that, since going back to work in March 2004, he had not taken any time off and had resumed all his normal activities. The Olsons moved for summary disposition, asserting that Jones failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he suffered a serious impairment of body function. The trial court ruled that Jones’ impairment was objectively manifested, but that he had not established a fact question as to whether the course or trajectory of his life had been affected to such an extent that he was not able to lead his normal life. But the Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed the trial court and remanded the case for trial. A temporary interruption of a plaintiff's ability to lead his normal life may constitute a serious impairment, the Court of Appeals stated; the totality of the circumstances supports Jones’ contention that he should recover damages for the time that his life was disrupted. The Olsons appeal.
Top of Page
|
