Jonathan Hall v. Shawn Edwin Ball
329494
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Hall) was rear-ended when a police cruiser driven by Officer Shawn Ball attempted to pass as Hall signaled a left turn; Ball worked for Genesee Township.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence; defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10).
- Defendants argued (1) Ball was immune from tort liability because his conduct was not grossly negligent, and (2) plaintiff did not suffer a "serious impairment of body function" under the No-Fault Act.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants on both grounds.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo and found genuine factual disputes about Ball’s conduct (whether he attempted to pass a car that was signaling a left turn) and about whether plaintiff sustained objectively manifested, important impairments affecting his general ability to lead his normal life.
- The Court reversed and remanded, holding summary disposition was improper as to both gross negligence/immunity and the threshold injury question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Ball was entitled to governmental immunity or his conduct amounted to gross negligence | Ball attempted to pass while Hall was signaling left; Ball’s conduct was at least grossly negligent | Ball was not grossly negligent and thus immune under MCL 691.1407(2) | Genuine fact issue exists about Ball’s conduct; summary disposition improper on immunity/gross negligence |
| Whether the Township is liable | Township can be liable under ordinary negligence if officer not immune | Township argued summary disposition appropriate if officer immune | Because gross negligence was a factual question, Township’s ordinary-negligence liability also could not be resolved on summary disposition |
| Whether plaintiff suffered a "serious impairment of body function" under the No-Fault Act | Hall argues objectively manifested impairments (floaters, severe lower-back muscle spasms) that affect his general ability to lead his normal life | Defendants argue plaintiff admitted little is technically different and pain alone is insufficient | Court found objective evidence and activity restrictions create a factual dispute; summary disposition premature |
| Whether pain-only complaints suffice to meet the no-fault threshold | Hall points to observable conditions (floaters, muscle spasms) and lifestyle changes (no hockey, less play with child) | Defendants stress that subjective pain without objective findings is insufficient | Court held record contains objectively manifested impairments and lifestyle effects sufficient to avoid disposition as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (standard of review for summary disposition and treatment of MCR 2.116(C)(10) and (C)(7))
- McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010) (defines "serious impairment of body function" under the No-Fault Act)
- Tallman v. Markstron, 180 Mich App 141 (1989) (factual disputes over negligence and immunity are for the trier of fact)
- McDanield v. Hemker, 268 Mich App 269 (2005) (discussion that pain alone, without objective findings or doctor-imposed restrictions, generally is insufficient)
- Schubot v. Thayer, 156 Mich App 545 (1986) (pain-and-suffering claims require objective evidence to meet no-fault threshold)
- Ortega v. Lenderink, 382 Mich 218 (1969) (parties are bound by the evidentiary record despite inconsistent prior statements)