Case Name: KELLEHER v. KUCHTA
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1984-10-01
Citations: 138 Mich. App. 45
Docket Number: Docket No. 71031
Parties: KELLEHER v KUCHTA
Judges: Before: V. J. Brennan, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and G. R. Cook, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 138
Pages: 45–50

Head Matter:
KELLEHER v KUCHTA
Docket No. 71031.
Submitted November 16, 1983, at Lansing.
Decided October 1, 1984.
Michael Kelleher and his wife, Lindsay Kelleher, individually and as next friend of their minor children, Matthew and Amy Kelleher, filed suit against Bradley T. Kuchta and Ford Motor Company in Livingston Circuit Court seeking damages. for injuries suffered in a collision between a vehicle in which the Kellehers were riding and a vehicle owned by Ford Motor Company and operated by Kuchta at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs alleged that all of the parties making claims suffered serious impairment of body function as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident. Mt. Brighton, Inc., was added as a party defendant for allegedly selling intoxicating liquor to Kuchta while he was visibly intoxicated. Defendants Kuchta and Ford Motor Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the claims against them by Michael, Matthew and Amy Kelleher. The court, Bert M. Hensick, J., granted summary judgment dismissing the claim of Matthew Kelleher as to those defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. Held:
The trial court’s ruling that, as a matter of law, Matthew Kelleher had not sustained injuries which constituted a serious impairment of a body function was not clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
M.J. Kelly, J., concurred in the result reached by the majority but would apply in no-fault cases alleging serious impairment of body function and seeking noneconomic tort liability a standard of review that would require both trial and appellate courts to view the undisputed facts in a light most favorable to the injured party and determine whether reason_able minds could differ on whether the impairment suffered is serious before ruling as a matter of law whether a serious impairment of body function exists. He would hold that, applying this standard of review, reasonable minds could not differ on whether Matthew Kelleher’s injuries constitute serious impairment of a body function and that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment as to Matthew Kelleher’s claim.
References for Points in Headnotes
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 843.
7 Am Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance §§ 349, 358.
What constitutes sufficiently serious personal injury, disability, impairment, or the like to justify recovery of damage outside of no-fault insurance coverage. 33 ALR4th 767.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 885.
Opinion of the Court
1. Insurance — No-Fault Insurance — Serious Impairment of Body Function — Appeal.
The Court of Appeals should affirm a trial court’s ruling, as a matter of law, that a plaintiff’s injuries do not constitute a serious impairment of body function for purposes of noneconomic tort recovery under the no-fault act unless the ruling is clearly erroneous (MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135).
Concurrence by M. J. Kelly, J.
2. Insurance — No-Fault Insurance — Serious Impairment of Body Function — Appeal — Standard of Review.
A trial court, in deciding whether, as a matter of law, injuries suffered by a party constitute a serious impairment of body function for purposes of noneconomic tort recovery under the no-fault act, should view the undisputed facts in a light most favorable to the injured plaintiff and determine whether reasonable minds could differ on whether the impairment suffered is serious; this is also the standard of review which should be applied by the Court of Appeals when reviewing the decision of the trial court (MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135).
Kenneth E. Burchñeld, for plaintiff.
Ogne, Jinks, Ecclestone & Alberts, P.C. (by Dennis Alberts), for defendants.
Before: V. J. Brennan, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and G. R. Cook, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs appeal from an order of partial summary judgment entered in the Livingston County Circuit Court. The trial court determined that, as a matter of law, Matthew Kelleher had not sustained injuries which constituted a serious impairment of a body function. This case arises as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling in Cassidy v McGovern, 415 Mich 483; 330 NW2d 22 (1982), that where there exists no factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of a plaintiff's injuries, the trial court shall rule as a matter of law whether there has been a "serious impairment of body function". MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. At the time of the accident, Matthew was a normal seven-year-old child. He did suffer, however, from a mild problem with stuttering and was seeing a speech therapist at his elementary school for some 20 to 30 minutes each week. After the accident, the stuttering became more acute and required more intensive therapy. At oral argument, it was conceded that Matthew is making good progress with his speech problem and that his prognosis is excellent.
Unless this Court is going to end up simply "second guessing" the trial courts in these Cassidy cases, we must adopt some standard for appellate review which accords some deference to the trial judge who actually saw the evidence unfold, at least until our Supreme Court provides us with more definitive guidance. We believe that an appropriate standard is that unless the trial court's ruling was clearly erroneous we should affirm the findings of the trial court. In this case, we do not find that the trial court's ruling was clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.