Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 76440; Published
Judges Danhof, R. B. Burns, and Brennan.; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 145 Mich App 603; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (Snowmobiles) [§3101(2)(e)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a snowmobile was not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of §3101(2) of the no-fault act. Thus, plaintiff was not entitled to recover no-fault benefits when he caught his hand in the track of the snowmobile.
The court held that in order to come within the definition of motor vehicle, a vehicle must be operated or designed for operation upon a public highway and have more than two wheels. Without deciding whether or not the two-wheel requirement applied to a snowmobile, the court held that a snowmobile was not a motor vehicle for the reason that it was not designed for operation on a public highway.
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on Ebernickel v State Farm (Item No. 829), which held that the appropriate inquiry is whether a vehicle is primarily designed for operation on a public highway.
"The feet that the machine could be operated on a highway or had been previously operated on a highway was of no consequence." The fact that snowmobiles can, under certain circumstances, be operated on non-snowplowed county roads outside the corporate limits of the city does not mean that the snowmobile is primarily designed to operate on a public highway. Generally, the Motor Vehicle Code prohibits the use of snowmobiles on public highways. They are vehicles that are more properly considered off-the-road vehicles. Therefore, plaintiff’s injury in this case was not compensable with no-fault benefits.