 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Betty Jean Shinholster v. Annapolis Hospital7/30/2004
e suffered, at some point in the past as the result of a defendant's negligent conduct, the type of injury enumerated in § 1483(1)(c).
Further, we note that, had the Legislature truly intended that an injured party must continue to suffer the higher tier injury at the time of judgment, it knew how to make that intent specific, as shown by MCL 600.6311, infra, in which the Legislature states that this provision is to apply if "a plaintiff . . . is 60 years of age or older at the time of judgment." (Emphasis added.) Unlike § 6311, § 1483 does not provide such a clear temporal framework.
Moreover, had the Legislature intended that the term "is," as used in § 6311, mean what defendants and the Chief Justice assert it means in § 1483 (i.e., at the time of judgment), we see no indication in § 6311 that the Legislature qualified the term within the temporal framework of "at the time of judgment."
Defendants and the Chief Justice fail to explain why the use of the present tense of verbs in § 1483(1)(a) and (b) demonstrates that the Legislature intended that a plaintiff suffer from one of the enumerated conditions at the time of judgment, rather than at the time the action is filed, the jury is selected, opening statements are made, the first witness takes the stand, closing statements are made, at the beginning of jury deliberations, or at the time at which the jury renders its verdict. Defendants and the Chief Justice assert that the Legislature showed an intent to set the temporal framework at the time of judgment by stating that the higher tier exception applies "as determined by the court pursuant to section 6304 . . . ." However, in our judgment, references in § 1483 to § 6304 serve merely to clarify under which statute the court is authorized and required to reduce the damages award consistent with § 1483. We do not read into this reference a legislative intent to bar a plaintiff, whose decedent has suffered while still alive and has suffered "as the result of the negligence of 1 or more of the defendants, 1 or more of the following [injuries]," from recovering pursuant to the higher tier merely because the plaintiff's decedent was unfortunate enough to die before the post-verdict damages determination. Rather, on the basis of the statutory language previously discussed, we believe that the better interpretation of the statute is that, as long as a plaintiff suffers, while still living and as a result of a defendant's negligent conduct, one of the enumerated conditions set forth in § 1483, the statute's higher damages cap applies.
Because plaintiff in this case presented evidence from which it could be rationally concluded that, "as the result of the negligence of 1 or more of the defendants," it could have been said at some time before her death that she "is hemiplegic, paraplegic, or quadriplegic [as a result of]
njury to the brain," or "has permanently impaired cognitive capacity," we agree with the determination made by the lower courts that the higher damages cap of § 1483 applies under the circumstances of this case.
C. MCL 600.6311 While MCL 600.6306(1)(c), (d), and (e) provide that all future damages awarded to a plaintiff be reduced to gross present value, MCL 600.6311 creates an exception to this general rule by stating, "Sections 6306(1)(c), (d), and (e) . . . do not apply to a plaintiff who is 60 years of age or older at the time of judgment." Thus, only when a plaintiff is younger than sixty years of age at the time of judgment, must the trial court reduce the plaintiff's future damages to present cash value.
Plaintiff asserts that, for purposes of § 6311, the term "plaintiff" in a wrongful death action is either th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Michigan DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|