If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

BRENDAN KREFT,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

August 31, 2023

v No. 361178

Oakland Circuit Court

TREY MICHAEL RIDGWAY and JAMES LEE 

RIDGWAY,

LC No. 2020-182592-NI

Defendants-Appellants.

Before: O’BRIEN, P.J., and CAVANAGH and MARKEY, JJ.

MARKEY, J. (dissenting).

Because I conclude that the trial court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), I respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority effectively 

ignores the pronouncement in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 203; 795 NW2d 517 (2010), 

that MCL 500.3135(5) “does not create an express temporal requirement as to how long an 

impairment must last in order to have an effect on the person’s general ability to live his or her 

normal life.” (Quotation marks omitted.)

We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for JNOV. Hecht v Nat’l Heritage 

Academies, Inc, 499 Mich 586, 604; 886 NW2d 135 (2016). With respect to motions for JNOV, 

the evidence and all legitimate inferences are examined in a light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party. Sniecinski v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich, 469 Mich 124, 131; 666 NW2d 186 (2003). 

A motion for JNOV should be granted only if the evidence viewed in this light fails to establish a 

claim or establishes a claim as a matter of law. See id. If reasonable jurors could have honestly 

reached different conclusions, we cannot interfere with the jury’s verdict, which must be allowed 

to stand. Zantel Marketing Agency v Whitesell Corp, 265 Mich App 559, 568; 696 NW2d 735 

(2005). “Further, this Court recognizes the unique opportunity of the jury and the trial judge to 

observe witnesses and the fact-finder’s responsibility to determine the credibility and weight of 

the testimony.” Wiley v Henry Ford Cottage Hosp, 257 Mich App 488, 491; 668 NW2d 402 

(2003).
-2-

There can be no reasonable dispute that plaintiff suffered an objectively manifested 

impairment of an important body function. MCL 500.3135(5); McCormick, 487 Mich at 215. The 

fight in this litigation concerned whether the impairment affected plaintiff’s general ability to lead 

his normal life. Id. The testimony of plaintiff and his parents established absent any evidence to 

the contrary that for a short period of time after plaintiff returned home from the hospital, he needed 

assistance from his family with dressing, showering, sitting down in and getting out of chairs, and 

entering and exiting vehicles. Plaintiff could not navigate stairs or carry items of any significant 

weight, and he used a wheelchair and wore a back brace. This evidence, even when viewed in a 

light most favorable to defendants, clearly and overwhelmingly demonstrated that for a limited 

period of time, plaintiff’s general ability to lead his normal life was affected. He needed assistance 

with some of the basic functions of life. Furthermore, the record showed without dispute that 

baseball was an integral part of plaintiff’s life and that the injuries from the accident precluded 

him from playing baseball in the summer of 2018. 

The fact that the impact was short-lived may limit the amount of damages, but it does not 

support a determination that the impairment did not affect plaintiff’s general ability to lead his 

normal life. McCormick makes clear that MCL 500.3135(5) does not have a durational or temporal 

requirement. McCormick, 487 Mich at 203. 

In sum, I conclude that the trial court did not err by granting the motion for JNOV and 

ordering a trial on the issue of damages. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

 

/s/ Jane E. Markey