The Driver Who Hit You Was High. Does That Change Your Michigan Claim?

Short answer: the fact that the driver who hit you was high does not by itself increase what your Michigan injury claim is worth, and it does not lower the legal test you have to meet. Michigan does not award punitive damages in an ordinary motor vehicle negligence case, your no-fault benefits are paid without regard to anyone's fault, and your right to sue for pain and suffering still runs through the serious impairment threshold in MCL 500.3135. What impairment changes is the fight over fault, and in Michigan that is the fight that decides whether you recover noneconomic damages at all. Treat it as powerful evidence, not as a bonus.

Michigan does not pay extra because the other driver was impaired

Almost everyone assumes the opposite, and expects the claim to be worth a multiple of an ordinary case. Michigan law does not work that way.

There are no punitive damages in a garden-variety Michigan negligence case. What Michigan calls exemplary damages is not a punishment at all: the Supreme Court treats it as a class of compensatory damages, awarded for injured feelings. It set the limit plainly in Veselenak v Smith, 414 Mich 567, 575; 327 NW2d 261 (1982): "Due to the required mental element, negligence is not sufficient to justify an award of exemplary damages." The same decision held that where a jury is already compensating mental distress and anguish as ordinary damages, adding an exemplary award lets a plaintiff "be doubly compensated for one injury." There is no separate pot of money for outrage.

Two other things do not change. Your no-fault benefits, the medical care and wage loss paid under MCL 500.3105, are paid without regard to fault, so the other driver's condition cannot raise them. And the threshold you must clear to sue for pain and suffering is the same as in any other crash. Our post on the threshold that decides whether you can sue walks through that test.

The criminal case is not your case

Three subsections of the Michigan Vehicle Code can reach a driver who uses marijuana. Under MCL 257.625, subsection (1)(a) makes it a crime to operate while "under the influence of" a controlled substance. Subsection (3) is the lesser charge of operating while visibly impaired, which is frequently what these drivers are convicted of. Subsection (8) is the zero-tolerance provision, and it reads as an absolute rule: a person "shall not operate a vehicle" with "any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule 1" in his or her body.

None of that is your claim. A prosecution is the state punishing a driver. It does not prove your injuries, it does not establish that you met the threshold, and a conviction is no substitute for proving your own damages.

What the criminal case gives you is evidence: a blood draw, a toxicology result, an officer's written observations of speech and balance, dash and body camera video, sometimes a plea admitting impairment. That is the reason to watch the criminal docket, and also the reason not to wait for it.

Why cannabis impairment is harder to prove than drunk driving

With alcohol a number does the work. MCL 257.625(1)(b) sets the limit at 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, and above it the law stops arguing about how the driver seemed.

Marijuana has no equivalent, because of a 2013 Michigan Supreme Court decision. In People v Koon, 494 Mich 1; 832 NW2d 724 (2013), a registered medical marijuana patient was charged under the zero-tolerance provision with a blood THC level of 10 nanograms per milliliter. The Court held that the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act supersedes MCL 257.625(8) for registered patients, because the act withdraws its protection only when a patient drives "under the influence" of marijuana, and that phrase "contemplates something more than having any amount of marijuana in one's system and requires some effect on the person." The Court pointed back to the alcohol standard in People v Lambert, 395 Mich 296, 305; 235 NW2d 338 (1975), which asked whether the ability to drive was "substantially and materially affected," and added that a Legislature wanting a per se rule "might consider adopting a legal limit, like that applicable to alcohol."

Recreational use adds a layer. Under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, conduct the act allows is "not grounds for arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner" (MCL 333.27955), and state laws inconsistent with the act "do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act" (MCL 333.27954). The Supreme Court applied that inconsistency clause against another state statute in People v Hess, Docket No. 167895, decided unanimously on July 6, 2026. But the immunity runs "except as otherwise provided in section 4," the section on activities the act does not authorize, and driving while impaired is not conduct the act permits.

The upshot is simple. In a marijuana case nobody points to a number and stops. The case is built out of how the driver was actually driving: speed, lane position, delayed reaction, absence of braking, what the driver said at the scene, what the officer observed. That is harder than reading a breath result, which is why these cases get settled cheaply by people who never develop the evidence.

What impairment really changes: the fault fight

Michigan allocates damages by comparative fault, and MCL 500.3135(2)(b) bars noneconomic damages entirely for a plaintiff found more than 50 percent at fault. That is not a discount, it is a cliff. In a contested case the insurer's strategy is usually to move fault onto you: you pulled out, you were going too fast, you should have seen the car. Evidence that the other driver's reactions were impaired undercuts every version of that story at once, and it takes away the unavoidable-accident framing.

It also changes the negotiation. A defense lawyer weighing trial risk reads a toxicology report and an officer's observations differently than a disputed left turn, and so does the adjuster deciding what a file is worth to the company. That is a real effect on how a case gets valued, not a promise about any outcome.

The one intoxication statute that can be used against you

Michigan does have a statute about intoxication in civil injury cases. It points at the injured person, not at the driver who caused the crash.

MCL 600.2955a makes it "an absolute defense in an action for the death of an individual or for injury to a person or property that the individual upon whose death or injury the action is based had an impaired ability to function due to the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, and as a result of that impaired ability, the individual was 50% or more the cause of the accident." If the injured person was less than 50 percent the cause, the award is reduced by that percentage instead. The statute defines that impairment as senses "impaired to the point that the ability to react is diminished from what it would be" without the substance.

Read those side by side. A statute can wipe out an injured person's claim for being impaired. Nothing mirrors it to increase a defendant's liability for the same thing. So if you had used marijuana before the crash, even perfectly legally, expect this statute to be raised. Legality is not the question it asks. It asks about your ability to react, and about causation.

What to do in the first weeks

1. Get the crash report and its number. Ask the investigating agency whether a blood draw was taken and whether the driver was cited or arrested. The charge tells you which subsection the prosecutor thinks applies.
2. Write down what you saw and heard while it is fresh. What the driver said, how the driver moved, what was in the car, who else was standing there. Officer reports are summaries and they leave things out.
3. Preserve the physical evidence. Photograph both vehicles before anything is repaired or sent to salvage.
4. Give your own insurer written notice within one year. No-fault benefits require written notice of injury within a year, and recovery is limited to expenses incurred in the year before suit is filed (MCL 500.3145). That clock will not wait for the criminal case.
5. Do not wait for the criminal case to end. A claim against the driver generally must be filed within three years (MCL 600.5805), and criminal matters can run long past the point where witnesses scatter and vehicles are gone.
6. Be careful about your own toxicology and your own statements. If you were tested, assume the defense will have the result.

Frequently asked questions

If the driver is convicted, do I automatically win? No. A conviction shows the state met its burden in a criminal case. You still have to prove the driver's negligence caused your injuries and, for pain and suffering, that they clear the threshold. It is strong evidence on fault and nothing more.

Can I get punitive damages because the driver was high? Not in an ordinary Michigan negligence case. Veselenak holds that negligence is not enough to support exemplary damages, and that such damages compensate injured feelings rather than punish. Your claim is measured by your losses.

Marijuana is legal in Michigan now. Does that help the driver? Legalization protects what the act permits. It does not authorize driving while impaired and it does not touch your civil claim. A driver can be entitled to use marijuana at home and still answer for how he drove.

What if the driver had a medical marijuana card? It matters more to the criminal case than to yours. Under Koon a registered patient cannot be convicted under the zero-tolerance provision without proof of actual influence. Your civil claim never rested on that provision, because you have to prove negligent driving either way.

I had used marijuana myself that day. Is my claim gone? Not necessarily, but get advice before you talk to anyone. MCL 600.2955a is an absolute defense only if your impaired ability to function made you 50 percent or more the cause. Below that line it reduces your damages by your percentage.

Will my own no-fault benefits be reduced? Benefits under Michigan no-fault are paid without regard to fault, which is the point of the system. The act does contain separate exclusions that apply in particular situations, so a denial letter is worth having read rather than accepted.

Talk to a Michigan car accident lawyer

A free consultation on a case like this is worth twenty minutes. We will tell you what the criminal file probably contains and how to get it, whether the impairment evidence is strong enough to carry the fault fight or needs work while it can still be developed, whether MCL 600.2955a is a real problem on your facts or a bluff, and which deadline is closest. Our Michigan car accident lawyers handle these cases regularly, and you can see the kinds of matters we have resolved on our results page. Call Koussan Law at (313) 800-0000 or request a free consultation. Offices in Detroit, Dearborn Heights and Marquette; we serve clients across Michigan in English, Spanish and Arabic.