Custom «Plaggemeyer vs. Lee» Essay Paper Sample
This is a recent case where a wounded individual sued an insignificant motor-vehicle operator who caused the accident and succeeding injury. Motor-vehicle drivers and bicyclists are subject to exactly the similar No-fault analysis. It is stated in the law that only injuries that meet a specific threshold are entitled for compensation for suffering and pain, non-economic injuries. The threshold to recover ought to be attained in one of the three ways according to the Michigan No-Fault Statute, including death, serious injuries of a bodily function, or permanent serious deformity. Minimum threshold for the three means to recover through its written decisions have been set by the Michigan Supreme Court (State of Michigan Court of Appeals, 2009). In case an injured party- including all bicyclists- does not meet the threshold, he or she is only entitled for reimbursement for medical treatment from his or her motor-vehicle insurer and can’t recover damages from the neglectful driver or his or her insurer for any pain and suffering.
0 Preparing Orders
0 Active Writers
0% Positive Feedback
0 Support Agents
In the case of Plaggemeyer vs. Lee that was held in 2008 in the Michigan Court of Appeals, it was founded by the court that fractured femur of the plaintiff and its impermanent effect on his capability to walk was not a serious injury of a bodily function. It therefore stated by the court that even though plaintiff used a walker first, then crutches, and lastly a cane when required, he was capable of walking. Walking with assistance is not similar to being unable to walk at all. Broken femur of the plaintiff had no had not affected his general capability to lead his normal life (State of Michigan Court of Appeals, 2009). This is due to the fact that the claimant can walk without being assisted, perform unrestricted tasks at his work, s some yard work and home maintenance, and get involved in recreational activities.
Hurry up! Limited time offer
Use discount code
According to State of Michigan Court of Appeals (2009), claimant also argued that he suffered an enduring serious deformity due to the fact that he had a surgical scar on his thigh and leg is currently smaller in diameter as a result of the atrophy. The court didn’t permit him to be compensated. They recognized the scar in question is just about eight inches long, fairly narrow, is located on the upper left thigh of the claimant and is slightly different in color when compared to the surrounding skin and asserted that the scar is not a serious disfigurement since it will be concealed generally and will not be apparent readily.
According to this case and laws of the country, the Michigan Supreme Court o Appeals made correct decision in accordance to this case. This is because it is provided in the law that only injuries which meet certain threshold are entitled for compensation for suffering and pain, also referred to as non-economic injuries. In order for an individual to be compensated in case of an accident, he or she is supposed to be compensated in accordance to the Michigan Non-Fault Statute that includes death, serious injuries of bodily function, or permanent serious deformity (State of Michigan Court of Appeals, 2009).
Nevertheless, the plaintiff didn’t meet these conditions in that he didn’t die, he didn’t incur serious injuries of body bodily function or neither did he have a permanent serious deformity. This was clearly observed when it was revealed by the court that the plaintiff was able to continue with his duties at work, do yard work and even involved in recreational activities. When regarding a scar which he claimed that he had incurred a permanent scar, the scar was very minor and shallow to the extent that it could not readily apparent. Hence, it could have been unfair and unlawful to allow the plaintiff to be compensated by either driver who caused the accident or his/her insurer. Instead, the plaintiff was supposed to be compensated by his or her own insurer as stated in the law governing the country. this was a wise decision since it was not only fair but also due to the fact that such a decision will help in protecting all people across the country incase of accident other than permitting some individuals to be compensated for their own mistakes and non-serious injuries and deformations.