Michigan Supreme Court; Docket #124676
Unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 471 Mich. 692; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Unreasonably Parked Vehicles [3106(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court held that, under the parked vehicle provisions of §3106(1)(a), a police cruiser that is parked at least partially on a roadway for the purpose of aiding a stalled vehicle and with its emergency lights flashing, did not present an unreasonable risk of bodily injury, thereby creating entitlement to recover no-fault benefits. In so ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision which had concluded that the police cruiser had in fact created an unreasonable risk of injury within the meaning of §3106(1)(a).
In this case, the police cruiser was parked partially in a travel lane with its emergency lights flashing and its side spotlight on, in a well lit area, specifically for the purpose of providing necessary emergency services to a stalled vehicle that itself posed a risk of bodily injury. Moreover, the stalled vehicle also had its flashing lights on. There was one other northbound lane available, as well as a middle turn lane which was open. In short, the court noted there was nothing in the record to suggest that an oncoming northbound driver would not have had ample opportunity to observe, react to, and avoid the hazard posed by the police cruiser. Therefore, the police cruiser did not pose an unreasonable risk of injury. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court noted that it is not merely any risk that creates entitlement under §3106(1)(a), but only those risks which are “unreasonable.” In so holding, the court stated:
"Contrary to the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, the statutory language in MCL 500.3106(1)(a) that is at issue (i.e., a vehicle may be parked in such a way ‘as to cause unreasonable risk . . . ‘) recognizes that there are degrees of risk posed by a parked vehicle. The statutory language does not create a rule that whenever a motor vehicle is parked entirely or in part on a traveled portion of a road, the parked vehicle poses an unreasonable risk. In each case cited by the Court of Appeals it was determined that the vehicle involved posed an unreasonable risk (because it was parked partly or entirely on the traveled portion of a road). But that does not mean that the same result must necessarily obtain in a situation such as this, in which the parked vehicle was a police cruiser performing emergency services. Indeed, we find that the police cruiser in this case was not parked in such a fashion as to pose an unreasonable risk. We have no doubt that the cruiser posed a risk to other northbound vehicles and their occupants, and we have no doubt that, as the Court of Appeals said, the operator of the motorcycle had to perceive, react to, and navigate around the police cruiser. But none of this answers the question whether the parked police cruiser constituted an unreasonable risk." (emphasis in original)
In its opinion, the Supreme Court specifically noted the fact that the parties agreed that the police cruiser was “parked” at the time of the accident and, therefore, that was not an issue for determination by the court. The only issue before the court was whether the police cruiser created no-fault liability under §3106(1)(a). The opinion also did not address liability issues related to the disabled vehicle, as that portion of the case was not before the court.
The decision in this case reverses the Court of Appeals decision in Item 2398 with respect to the police cruiser issue.
