Car accident drunk backing

Holding that there were no material factual issues as to whether the defendant-driver intentionally harmed the plaintiff or whether the incident caused plaintiff's alleged serious impairment, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting defendant summary disposition. Plaintiff and defendant both consumed alcohol at a party, and defendant had an altercation with plaintiff's girlfriend. After plaintiff and his girlfriend left the party, defendant drove to plaintiff's home, where the altercation reignited. "Plaintiff attempted to separate the two women and demanded that defendant leave. Defendant got into her car, floored the accelerator with the car in reverse, and backed into plaintiff, catching his leg between her car and a parked car." Plaintiff went to the ER, reporting significant pain in his lower left leg. Medical personnel found no broken bones and told him to use crutches and follow up with his personal physician. He continued to have leg pain during the next year. "The central factual issue for analysis" as to the § 3135(3)(a) claim was whether defendant intended to cause harm. The record contained two reports relevant to this determination - the ER report and the police report. Both contained statements in which plaintiff and his girlfriend declared that defendant deliberately struck plaintiff with her car. However, the court did not have to decide whether the reports were admissible because plaintiff's sworn deposition testimony neutralized any questions of fact created by the reports. "Plaintiff expressly testified in deposition that he did not know whether defendant intentionally struck him." In light of his sworn deposition testimony, the court concluded that his prior unsworn statements were insufficient to create a question of fact as to defendant's intent. Plaintiff argued that the trial court should have inferred defendant's intent based on her conduct, citing Wardlaw. However, in Wardlaw witnesses testified that the defendant drove a truck onto a lawn and aimed for the victim. There was no testimony here that defendant aimed her car at plaintiff. The court also rejected plaintiff's claim that genuine factual issues precluded summary disposition on his serious impairment of body function claim. Defendant produced medical records showing that before the incident, plaintiff sustained two significant injuries that caused back and leg pain. The medical records indicated that his current condition was related to his prior injuries. "Once defendant presented these records, plaintiff was required under MCR 2.116(G)(4) to present evidence to create a question of fact" as to whether defendant's conduct caused his alleged serious impairment. He "presented no admissible evidence to establish that his current condition resulted from the incident at issue."