6.13Moving Violation Causing Serious Impairment of a Body Function
“A person who commits a moving violation while operating a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public, including, but not limited to, an area designated for the parking of motor vehicles, that causes serious impairment of a body function to another person is guilty of a misdemeanor[.]” MCL 257.601d(2).
MCL 257.601d “does not prohibit the person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law.” MCL 257.601d(3).
•M Crim JI 15.19 addresses the elements of a moving violation causing serious impairment of a body function.1
MCL 257.601d(2) provides for:
•imprisonment for not more than 93 days; or
•fine of not more than $500; or
•both.
Only applicable sanctions are listed below; accordingly, if a particular sanction is omitted from this section, it is not applicable to this offense. The Offense Code Index for Traffic Violations published by the secretary of state and sourced from the Michigan Department of State Court Manual includes a table detailing traffic offenses and applicable sanctions. The Offense Code Index for Traffic Violations is available at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/OffenseCode_73877_7.pdf. See Section 1.41 for more information on abstracting procedures.
•Six points. See MCL 257.320a(1)(b); MCL 257.732(1)(a). See Section 1.42 for more information on points.
•$1,000 driver responsibility fee. See MCL 257.732a(2)(a)(ii).2 See Section 1.43 for more information on driver responsibility fees.
•Mandatory one year license suspension; license denial authorized under certain circumstances. See MCL 257.303; MCL 257.319(2)(e). See Section 1.46 for more information on license suspension, and Section 1.44 for more information on license denial.
•Elements
MCL 257.601d(2) “plainly requires a causal link between the moving violation and the injury, not simply a causal link between the operation of the vehicle and the injury.” People v Czuprynski, 325 Mich App 449, 461 (2018) (“a moving violation together with the operation of the motor vehicle must cause the serious impairment of a body function”). M Crim JI 15.19 erroneously “tells the jury that operation of the vehicle alone must be the proximate cause [of the injury].” Czuprynski, 325 Mich App at 462. M Crim JI 15.19 “misapplies proximate causation to [MCL 257.601d(2)]” because it “relieve[s] the prosecution of proving that the moving violation caused the accident and instead require[s] only that ‘the operation of the motor vehicle’ caused the accident.” Czuprynski, 325 Mich App at 461, 462 (M Crim JI 15.19 includes an incorrect statement of law, and its use by the trial court coupled with “strongly controverted evidence as to the cause of the accident” was not harmless error because the error “almost certainly was outcome determinative”).
“MCL 257.601d imposes strict liability upon a motorist who commits a moving violation causing serious impairment of a body function to another person[.]” People v Pace, 311 Mich App 1, 12 (2015). “[T]he prosecution is required to prove solely (1) the commission of a moving violation; (2) another person suffered a serious impairment of a body function; and (3) a causal link between the bodily injury and the moving violation, i.e., factual and proximate causation. The prosecution is not required to also prove that [the] defendant operated his [or her] vehicle in a negligent manner[.]” Id. See also Czuprynski, 325 Mich App at 462, 468, 469.
A general verdict as to the moving violation, without unanimity, is sufficient to support a jury’s conclusion that a violation of MCL 257.601d(2) occurred. Czuprynski, 325 Mich App at 467 (the prosecutor may present alternative theories regarding the type of moving violation).
•Due Process
“[I]mposing strict liability for the offense of committing a moving violation causing serious impairment of a body function[, MCL 257.601d,] does not offend due process.” Pace, 311 Mich App at 12 (noting that “the offense is a misdemeanor [and despite the severe harm that such an offense inflicts upon the victim,] . . . [t]he penalty is . . . relatively small[,]” and that “because the crime is a misdemeanor only, it is far less likely to ‘besmirch’ the defendant[]”) (citations omitted).
1 The instruction should only be used for act committed on or after October 31, 2010.
2 Beginning October 1, 2018, the driver responsibility fee law will no longer be in effect, meaning no new driver responsibility fee assessments, and outstanding driver responsibility fees will not be collected. See MCL 257.732a(10) and MCL 257.732a(11). See Section 1.43(C) for more specific information related to the elimination of driver responsibility fees.