The Court of Appeal in Meyer v. Bright (supra, at paras. 19-39) analyzed the meaning of the terms "impaired bodily function and serious permanent impairment of an important bodily function" in the context of the legislative scheme. The court rejected a subjective or objective test or a combined subjective/objective test to determine whether or not a particular bodily function was important. The court stated that whether the bodily function was important depended in part on the individual who was injured. Similarly, the term "serious" related to the degree of the impairment of the particular individual injured. The court stated that " . . . generally speaking, a serious impairment is one which causes substantial interference with the ability of the injured person to perform his or her daily activities or to continue his or her regular employment" (supra, at para. 34). These are fact-driven issues.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.