Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


LINDA REAM and TERRY REAM, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v BURKE ASPHALT PAVING, JOHN BURKE, and CHAN CULBERT, Defendants-Appellants.

UNPUBLISHED February 1, 2005

No. 238824 Ingham Circuit Court LC No. 99-091090-NI

ON REMAND

Before: Meter, P.J., and Talbot and Borrello, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this negligence case arising from a motor vehicle accident, defendants originally appealed as of right from a judgment for plaintiffs that was entered after a jury trial. We affirmed, finding, in part, that plaintiff Terry Ream suffered a sufficient injury to sustain an action for damages under MCL 500.3135(1), a provision of the no-fault act. See Ream v Burke Asphalt Paving, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 9, 2003 (Docket No. 238824), slip op at 7-8. Defendants appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which subsequently vacated our opinion in part and remanded the case to us "for reconsideration, in light of Kreiner [v Fisher, 471 Mich 109; 683 NW2d 611 (2004)], of whether Terry Ream experienced a serious impairment of body function." See Ream v Burke Asphalt Paving, ___ Mich ___; 688 NW2d 823 (2004). We once again affirm. Under the no-fault act, "[a] person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement." MCL 500.3135(1). The act defines "serious impairment of body function" 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(7). On appeal, defendants focus on only one facet of the test to determine the existence of a threshold injury. Specifically, they focus on whether the injuries affected Terry Ream's general

-1-


ability to lead a normal life.1 In Kreiner, the Court considered the factors to be considered in determining whether an injury has affected a person's ability to lead his normal life. It stated that the objectively manifested impairment of an important body function must affect the course of a person's life. Accordingly, the effect of the impairment on the course of a plaintiff's entire normal life must be considered. 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 starting point in analyzing whether an impairment affects a person's "general" i.e., overall, ability to lead his normal life should be identifying how his life has been affected, by how much, and for how long. Specific activities should be examined with an understanding that not all activities have the same significance in a person's overall life. Also, minor changes in how a person performs a specific activity may not change the fact that the person may still "generally" be able to perform that activity. *** The following nonexhaustive list of objective factors may be of assistance in evaluating whether the plaintiff's "general ability" to conduct the course of his normal life has been affected: (a) the nature and extent of the impairment, (b) the type and length of treatment required, (c) the duration of the impairment, (d) the extent of any residual impairment, and (e) the prognosis for eventual recovery. This list of factors is not meant to be exclusive nor are any of the individual factors meant to be dispositive by themselves. . . . [T]he totality of the circumstances must be considered, and the ultimate question that must be answered is whether the impairment "affects the person's general ability to conduct the course of his or her normal life." [Kreiner, supra at 130-131, 133134 (emphasis in original; footnotes omitted).] Before his motor vehicle accident, Terry Ream worked for the Ingham County Road Commission, driving heavy equipment and trimming and cutting trees. He also participated in many outdoor activities, such as hunting, fishing, and softball. The available evidence indicated that these outdoor activities were an important and meaningful component of Terry's life. As a

Given that defendants focus on only the "general ability to lead a normal life" aspect of the test to determine whether a serious impairment of body function occurred, the trial court did not commit an error requiring reversal in resolving the issue of the threshold injury as a matter of law (instead of submitting the issue to the jury). See, generally, Kreiner, supra at 132, and MCL 500.3135(2)(a).

1

-2-


result of his motor vehicle accident, Terry suffered multiple abrasions and contusions to his right lower shin and ankle, right wrist abrasions and contusions, an injury to his lower spine, and the tearing of the head of his right biceps tendon. His injuries prevented him from working for two months, and he wore a foam walking cast for some time. Although many of the injuries eventually healed, Terry testified at trial2 that he could not participate in activities he had previously enjoyed, such as stream fishing or pheasant hunting, due to his inability to walk over uneven terrain without difficulty and pain. He could no longer hunt from a tree stand or play softball, and he stated that his injuries continued to affect his ability to perform his job as of the date of trial. His treating physician, Dr. Mark Richardson, stated that post-accident arthritic degeneration in Terry's big toe

Download LINDA REAM V BURKE ASPHALT PAVING.pdf

Michigan Law