Court Opinion

ID: 9528715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:43:19.706491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:14.040040
License: Public Domain

Riley, J.
I concur in Chief Justice Cavanagh’s opinion.
However, I write separately to indicate my disagreement with the lead opinion’s attempt to distinguish this case from DiFranco v Pickard, 427 Mich 32; 398 NW2d 896 (1986). While finding that "unreasonable risk” (the language of the no-fault act which concerns this case) presents a question *216of law, Chief Justice Cavanagh reaffirms the majority opinion in DiFranco that "serious impairment of a bodily function” is a question of fact. This holding was challenged by former Chief Justice Williams in part i of his DiFranco opinion, a view to which I subscribed and continue to hold. Id. at 93.
Griffin, J. I concur in the result and, except as to part ii(a), the reasoning of the opinion of Chief Justice Cavanagh.