Court Opinion

ID: 9728484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:09:24.147641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:49.099538
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from a March 20, 1979, order denying their motion for a directed verdict on the basis that plaintiff Leo Cassidy’s injuries incurred in an automobile acci*102dent constituted a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law.
This decision was made after trial pursuant to a remand ordered by this Court in Cassidy v McGovern, 86 Mich App 321; 272 NW2d 644 (1978). This Court held that the trial court used an erroneous standard when ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict because the court believed that he was forced to send the threshold question of tort liability under MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1) to the jury.
On remand, the trial court found that there was ample medical testimony and circumstantial evidence to warrant reasonable men to differ as to whether Leo Cassidy truly suffered a serious impairment of body function. The lower court ruled that as a matter of law the injuries did not qualify as a serious impairment of body function.
On appeal, plaintiffs argue that a directed verdict in their favor is compelled as a matter of law.
The proper test for determining whether a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiffs should be granted is whether reasonable men could reach different conclusions from the facts taken in the light most favorable to the defendants. Armstrong v LeBlanc, 395 Mich 526, 532; 236 NW2d 419 (1975).
In the present case, liability was admitted; the sole issue submitted to the jury being whether serious impairment of body function had occurred. The jury rejected plaintiffs’ position and found no serious impairment of body function, showing that reasonable men can differ.
We hold that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict. From our review of the testimony offered by plain*103tiffs, we find that reasonable men can reach different conclusions. Thus, the trial court was correct in submitting this issue to the jury.
Affirmed. Costs to defendants.