JESSE JAMES SMITH V RICHARD MEREDITH TOWNSEND
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JESSE JAMES SMITH,
UNPUBLISHED
November 12, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 234446
Benzie Circuit Court
LC No. 00-005821-NI
RICHARD MEREDITH TOWNSEND,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Gage and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order denying his motion for summary
disposition and granting the motion for summary disposition filed by defendant. We affirm.
This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On January 24, 1998, plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by defendant. The
vehicle left the road and hit a tree. Plaintiff was taken to the emergency room, where he was
found to have a laceration over his right eye, a contusion on his face, a right orbital wall fracture,
and two nondisplaced fractured ribs. The laceration was sutured, and the other injuries did not
require treatment. Shortly after the accident, plaintiff developed urinary incontinence. This
problem resolved itself by March 4, 1998.
On November 17, 1998, plaintiff sought treatment for back pain. He told his family
physician that he had been experiencing intermittent back pain, that it had worsened in the last
two weeks, and that he had to discontinue working as a carpenter as a result. An MRI detected
two very small disc protrusions in the lumbar area of his back; however, the tests were negative
in all other respects.
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the injuries he suffered in the accident constituted a
serious impairment of body function and serious permanent disfigurement. Both parties moved
for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Defendant argued the medical
evidence did not establish that plaintiff’s injuries constituted a serious impairment of body
function and did not support a finding the injuries had affected plaintiff’s ability to lead his
normal life. Plaintiff argued the evidence demonstrated his back injuries had left him unable to
work in the construction field and had severely restricted his leisure activities. The trial court
granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition and denied plaintiff’s motion, finding the
-1-
evidence did not demonstrate the existence of a serious impairment of body function, and did not
show any injuries that plaintiff suffered in the accident affected his ability to lead his normal life.
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo.
Harrison v Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 605; 572 NW2d 679 (1997).
A serious impairment of body function is “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). Whether a person has suffered a serious impairment of body function is a
question of law for the court if there is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the
injuries or if there is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the injuries but the
dispute is not material to whether the plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body
function. MCL 500.3135(2)(a).
In determining whether the impairment of the important body function is serious, the
court should consider factors such as the extent of the injury, the treatment required, the duration
of the disability, and the extent of residual impairment and prognosis for eventual recovery.
Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 341; 612 NW2d 838 (2000). In assessing the extent
of the injury, a court may compare the plaintiff’s lifestyle before and after the injury. May v
Sommerfield (After Remand), 240 Mich App 504, 506; 617 NW2d 920 (2000).
Plaintiff argues the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition and denying his motion. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s decision. The
evidence showed that plaintiff had several objectively manifested injuries, including a laceration
over his right eye, a fracture of the right orbital wall, and two fractured ribs. The undisputed
evidence showed that these injuries healed rapidly and did not require further care. Plaintiff
developed a problem with urinary incontinence; however, this problem resolved itself within six
weeks after the accident. No evidence showed that plaintiff suffered any residual impairments
resulting from these injuries.
Plaintiff did not seek treatment for back pain until nearly ten months after the accident.
Objective tests showed the existence of two small herniated discs; however, the condition was
described as degenerative and was determined to not be the cause of plaintiff’s right side pain.
Furthermore, the evidence did not establish that plaintiff’s pattern of working only sporadically
changed after the accident or that he was no longer able to engage in activities such as hunting
and fishing. The evidence showed that plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life was not
significantly altered by the injuries he sustained in the accident. Miller v Purcell, 246 Mich App
244, 250; 631 NW2d 760 (2001); May, supra. The trial court determined the issue whether
plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function was a question of law, MCL
500.3135(2)(a)(ii), and correctly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition and denied
plaintiff’s motion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.