Opinion ID: 2763303
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: hannay

Text: This matter arises from a February 13, 2007 motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle driven by plaintiff Heather Hannay and a salt truck owned by defendant Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and driven by MDOT’s employee, Brian Silcox. Silcox failed to stop at a stop sign, and the salt truck collided with plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff alleged that Silcox5 and MDOT, as Silcox’s employer and the owner of the salt truck, were liable for damages caused by Silcox’s negligence. Plaintiff alleged injuries to her shoulders, neck, spine, back, head, chest, arms, knees, and other internal and external 5 Defendant Silcox is not involved in this appeal because plaintiff dismissed her complaint against him before trial began. 4 injuries to her body. Plaintiff claimed all economic damages compensable under the nofault act, but specifically alleged allowable expenses and work loss in excess of the statutory limitations.6 MDOT raised governmental immunity as an affirmative defense. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that MDOT was liable for workloss damages exceeding the statutory limitations under the no-fault act and that plaintiff was entitled to work-loss damages as a dental hygienist earning $28 per hour.7 In reaching its conclusion, the court found that it was “more likely than not” that plaintiff would “have been admitted into the Dental Hygienist program at LCC,” that it was “more likely than not [that she would] have successfully completed the program,” and that plaintiff had proven part-time, but not full-time, employment of three days a week. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not err by awarding plaintiff economic damages and that the trial court’s factual findings supported the calculation of plaintiff’s work-loss award.8 Regarding the trial court’s conclusion that 6 Plaintiff also alleged all noneconomic damages compensable under the no-fault act for the serious impairment of a body function or permanent serious disfigurement. Defendant did not appeal the trial court’s finding that plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of a body function or the trial court’s award of noneconomic damages, and thus, those issues are not before this Court. Therefore, while the issue of noneconomic damages is at issue in Hunter, it is not at issue in Hannay. 7 The trial court calculated plaintiff’s work-damages based on a rate of 60% of full-time employment, i.e., part-time employment, in light of the testimony presented at trial that (1) plaintiff would have been hired to replace Mrs. Johnston, who worked part time, to allow her to retire and (2) Dr. Johnston did not have any full-time dental hygienists currently on staff. 8 Hannay, 299 Mich App at 270, 273-274. The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s cross-appeal, in which plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by calculating her workloss damages on the basis of part-time employment rather than full-time employment. Id. at 273. 5 work-loss damages were recoverable against a governmental entity in light of the motor vehicle exception, the Court of Appeals held that “the bodily injury that must be incurred to maintain an action against a governmental entity and the items of damages recoverable from those injuries are separate and distinct from one another.”9 Thus, the panel concluded that “work-loss benefits . . . that exceed the statutory personal protection insurance benefit maximum pursuant to MCL 500.3135(3) are awardable against governmental entities . . . .”10 The panel characterized work-loss damages as “items of damages that arise from the bodily injuries suffered by plaintiff,” and explained that “[t]o hold otherwise would conflate the actual bodily-injury requirement for maintaining a motor vehicle cause of action against a governmental entity with the types of damages recoverable as a result of the bodily injury.”11