Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 175067; Unpublished
Judges Taylor, Murphy, and Grant; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Permanently Mounted Equipment Use [§3106(1)(b)]
Exception for Loading / Unloading [§3106(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion deals with the parked vehicle exclusions of §3106(1)(b) and (c). The court reversed the trial court and denied plaintiffs claim for no-fault benefits on the basis that her injury did not fall within either of these two exceptions to the parked vehicle exclusion. Plaintiff had parked her car in a parking lot of a mall. After parking the car, she exited the vehicle, opened the trunk, removed a baby stroller for her twin sons who were in the back seat of the car, positioned the stroller near the back of the car, removed one of her twin sons from the car and fell as she turned and started taking steps toward the stroller. Neither plaintiff nor her son hit the car when they fell. Plaintiff claimed that her fall was caused by a hole in the parking lot. She also claimed that she was entitled to no-fault benefits under the parked vehicle exclusion exceptions set forth in §3106(1)(b)(c).
The court rejected these claims and held that neither of these two subsections applied. Section 3106(1)(b) was inapplicable because this section limits recovery for injuries that are a direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle, while the equipment is being operated or used, or property being lifted onto or lowered from the vehicle in the loading or unloading process. The court stated that the stroller had already been removed from the vehicle when plaintiff fell and her remaining twin son, who was in the back seat of the car, was not "property." Even if the child was considered "property," plaintiff was not unloading that child from the vehicle when she fell.
The court also found that §3106(1)(c) did not apply. This section limits recovery to injuries which are sustained while a person is occupying, entering into or alighting from the vehicle. The court noted that the plaintiff was not alighting from the vehicle when she stepped into the hole and fell in the parking lot. She had already exited the vehicle, removed one child from the vehicle, and started taking steps toward the stroller at the rear of the vehicle when she fell. These facts precluded application of the alighting exception.
