Licari v. Elliott

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNo-Fault serious injury thresholdInsurance Law section 671 subdivision 4serious injuryno-faultsignificant limitation90/180 categorysubstantially all

Facts

Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was diagnosed with a concussion, cervical sprain, dorsal lumbar sprain, and a chest contusion. Hospital testimony showed his lungs were clear, reflexes normal, and only a very mild limitation of movement in his back and neck; no further medical proof described the extent of any limitation. Plaintiff returned to work as a taxi driver 24 days after the accident and immediately resumed his prior schedule of 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. His remaining proof consisted of his own testimony that he sometimes could not help passengers with luggage, could help less with household chores, and had occasional headaches and dizzy spells relieved by aspirin.

Issue

Whether plaintiff established a prima facie case of "serious injury" under the No-Fault Law by proving either a significant limitation of use of a body function or system or a medically determined nonpermanent injury that prevented him from performing substantially all of his usual daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days after the accident. Also, whether that threshold determination is for the court in the first instance or always for the jury.

Rule

Under Insurance Law section 671(4), the court must determine in the first instance whether a plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of serious injury sufficient to maintain a tort action. A "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" requires more than a minor, mild, or slight limitation. In the 90/180 category, "substantially all" means the plaintiff must be curtailed from performing usual activities to a great extent, and the plaintiff must prove the disability existed for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the injury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Buffalo, Nina Torres sued Owen Pike for pain and suffering after a car collision. At trial, Nina presented evidence that she missed four weeks of work, then resumed her usual 50-hour schedule, while her doctor described her neck restriction as mild; the judge plans to let the jury decide whether the statutory threshold is met because injury severity is supposedly always factual.

Under the governing rule, who should decide in the first instance whether Nina has made a prima facie showing of serious injury?

Explanation. The majority held that the court must decide in the first instance whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of serious injury sufficient to maintain a tort action. The threshold issue is not always for the jury, because the statute was designed to keep minor automobile injury cases out of court. On these facts, the judge should screen the claim before submission if the issue is properly raised. (Derived from Licari v. Elliott (n.d.).)