Donald Nolen v. Mark Patrick Hastings
327785
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Plaintiff-Nolen sued Hastings for negligence arising from a motor vehicle collision where Hastings was intoxicated and rear-ended a stopped car.
- Plaintiff asserted Elizabeth Hastings could be liable as owner under owner liability theories.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing no-serious-impairment-of-body-function (SIBF) under MCL 500.3135(1).
- Trial court ruled, as a matter of law, that plaintiff failed to prove a SIBF under prong three (effect on general life activities), relying on Kreiner footnote 17 via McDanield.
- On appeal, this Court overruled the trial court’s reliance on Kreiner/McDanield and held there is a genuine fact issue whether the impairment affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life.
- The decision reversed, allowing plaintiff to seek costs as prevailing party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved a SIBF under MCL 500.3135(5). | Nolen contends the impairment significantly affected his normal life. | Hastings argues no objectively manifested impairment affecting normal life. | Question of fact exists on prong three; SIBF not established as a matter of law. |
| Whether the trial court erred by relying on Kreiner footnote 17 via McDanield to discount self-imposed pain restrictions. | Nolen argues Kreiner footnote 17 is superseded and misapplied post-McCormick. | Hastings argues Kreiner footnote 17 invalidated by later authority. | Court rejects reliance on Kreiner/McDanield; analyzes under McCormick framework. |
| Whether the record supports a jury question on whether plaintiff’s injuries affected his general ability to live his normal life. | Nolen’s activities (flying, riding, golfing, reading, sleeping) are curtailed due to pain. | Hastings argues restrictions are self-imposed and not supported by medical restrictions. | There is a jury question on whether impairment affected general life activities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (Michigan Supreme Court 2004) (footnote 17 regarding self-imposed restrictions; factors used to evaluate residual impairment not controlling)
- McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (Michigan Supreme Court 2010) (rejected Kreiner factors; guidance on SIBF analysis; no fixed quantitative threshold)
- McDanield v Hemker, 268 Mich App 269 (Michigan Appellate Court 2005) (applied Kreiner framework; clarified residual impairment analysis post-McCormick)