Lenawee County District Court; Docket No. 10-059-K; Unpublished
Judge Yale Leland Kirby; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Security Requirement Applicable for Highway Use [§3101(1)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this two-year old no-fault decision, Judge Kirby held that a farm combine vehicle which was not designed for use on a public highway, but which was being incidentally operated on a public road when it struck the plaintiff, is a vehicle within the meaning of §3101(2) of the No-Fault Statute, and thus, the No-Fault Law applies to such an accident Accordingly, the plaintiff could only recover for non-economic losses, and only if he suffered a serious impairment of a body function.
Nevertheless, Judge Kirby went on to hold that §3135 of the No-Fault Statute established an arbitrary classification of tort victims which is violative of the Equal Protection Clause. The court interpreted that section to mean that tort victims injured by uninsured tortfeasors retain their full tort remedies, whereas, victims injured by insured tortfeasors are limited to recovery of noneconomic losses in cases of serious impairment. Such a statutory scheme unconstitutionally determines the right of tort victims by the status of the tortfeasor.
The Constitutional issue which was decided in this opinion is contra to the subsequent holdings of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Shavers v Attorney General; and McKendrick v Petrucci.
