Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #254257; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Meter, and Schuette; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [3105(1)]
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [3106(1)]
Exception for Unreasonably Parked Vehicles [3106(1)(a)]
Exception for Permanently Mounted Equipment Use [3106(1)(b)]
Exception for Entering Into or Alighting From [3106(1)(c)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals interpreted the parked vehicle provisions of §3106 and the “arising out of” requirements of §3105 of the No-Fault Act, to conclude plaintiff’s injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle when he was struck by a motorcyclist while attempting to pick up trash in the middle of the road.
Plaintiff had placed a load of trash bags on the top of his vehicle in order to transport them from his home to the end of his driveway. Plaintiff forgot to take the trash bags off the top of his vehicle and drove away, thus resulting in the contents of the trash bags spilling onto the roadway. Plaintiff pulled his vehicle off the lane of travel, parallel to the trash spill in order to get out of his vehicle so he could retrieve the lost trash. Plaintiff left his engine running and turned on his four-way flashers. He collected a load of trash, walked back to his vehicle, and placed it on the back of his vehicle. While standing next to his vehicle, a motorcyclist came by and hit him, causing injury. After defendants denied plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits, this action was filed resulting in a trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff, finding he was entitled to benefits because his injuries did arise out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.
The Court of Appeals first addressed the case based upon the parked vehicle exception contained in §3106 of the No-Fault Act. That section of the no-fault statute provides in relevant part:
“Accidental bodily injury does not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a parked vehicle as a motor vehicle unless any of the following occur:
(a) the vehicle was parked so as to cause unreasonable risk of bodily injury;
(b) the injury was a direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle;
(c) the injury was sustained by a person while occupying, entering into, or alighting from the vehicle.”
The court noted there was a factual dispute concerning how proximate to the vehicle the plaintiff was located when injured. Plaintiff claimed he was near his vehicle and defendants alleged he was in the highway returning to collect more trash at the time of his injury. The court noted first that the proximity of plaintiff in relationship to the vehicle is not dispositive in this case, because even if one of the parked vehicle exceptions is established, under Putkamer v Transamerica Insurance Corporation, 454 Mich 626 (1997), the plaintiff must still establish the injury arose out of the “ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a parked motor vehicle as a motor vehicle” and the injury had a “causal relationship to the parked motor vehicle that is more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for.”
In this case, plaintiff’s motor vehicle was not the “instrumentality of the injury” and the injury was “not related to the transportational function of the motor vehicle.” The court held that “although plaintiff utilized his vehicle to get to the highway, his injury was not related to the transportational function of the motor vehicle.” Accordingly, the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff was reversed.
