## Facts

- Nicholas Licari, a taxi driver, was injured in an automobile accident on February 13, 1979, and was diagnosed with a concussion, cervical and lumbar sprains, and a chest contusion; he was released from the hospital the same day.
- Two days later he was briefly hospitalized for tests after coughing reddish phlegm; testing showed clear lungs and no rib damage, and a physician observed only a very mild limitation of neck and back motion.
- Licari returned to work 24 days after the accident and resumed his pre-accident schedule of driving 12 hours per day, six days per week.
- Licari’s claimed ongoing limits were largely subjective: difficulty helping some passengers with luggage, reduced help with household chores, and occasional headaches and dizziness relieved by aspirin.
- Licari sued Arthur Elliott for negligence seeking damages, including non-economic loss, which required proof of a statutory “serious injury” under New York’s no-fault scheme.

## Issues

1. Whether Licari presented legally sufficient evidence of a “serious injury” under New York’s No-Fault Insurance Law, either by showing (a) a significant limitation of use of a body function or system, or (b) a medically determined non-permanent injury preventing performance of substantially all usual daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days after the accident.
2. Whether the court should withhold the case from the jury and dismiss when the serious-injury threshold is not met as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held Licari failed, as a matter of law, to establish a statutory “serious injury.”
- The court concluded the proof showed at most minor, transient, and largely subjective complaints, including only a very mild limitation of motion shortly after the accident.
- The court held Licari did not satisfy the 90/180-day category because he returned to full-time work after 24 days and showed only slight curtailment of daily activities.
- The court stated that when the evidence is insufficient to meet the threshold, the claim must be dismissed rather than submitted to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York’s no-fault law, recovery for non-economic loss from a motor vehicle accident requires proof of a “serious injury” as a precondition to suit.
- “Significant limitation of use of a body function or system” requires more than minor restriction or subjective complaints; objective medical proof of a meaningful curtailment is required.
- The 90/180-day category requires a medically determined non-permanent injury that prevents the plaintiff from performing “substantially all” customary daily activities for at least 90 days during the first 180 days after the accident; “substantially all” means curtailment to a great extent, not slight limitation.
- Courts have a gatekeeping role to decide, in the first instance, whether a plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of serious injury; if not, dismissal is required as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

Because Licari returned quickly to a demanding work schedule and offered only minor, largely subjective limitations without objective proof of a meaningful impairment, he did not meet the statutory serious-injury threshold, and his tort claim for non-economic loss was properly dismissed.


Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 441 N.E.2d 1088 (N.Y. 1982)