Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 136558; Published
Judges Cavanagh, Griffin, and Jansen; 2-1 (with Judge Griffin Dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 201 Mich App 336; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [§3106(2)]
Exception for Vehicle Maintenance [§3106]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 published Opinion by Judge Jansen, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order finding plaintiff entitled to no-fault benefits and holding that the "parked vehicle" provisions of §3106(2)(a) did not preclude coverage because the injury did not occur during the course of loading, unloading, or doing mechanical work on a parked vehicle.
In this case, plaintiff, a truck driver, was hooking up a loaded trailer in defendant's Detroit yard and was to transport the trailer to defendant's yard in Windsor.
Plaintiff testified that the drivers shuttle the trailers to defendant's yard in Canada and drop them so that a Canadian road driver can pick up the trailer and deliver it to its destination in Canada. Plaintiff dropped the loaded trailer at defendant's Canadian yard and was then required to bring an empty trailer back to Detroit After hooking the electrical cable and air hoses from the tractor to the empty trailer, he performed a "circle check" of the tractor-trailer unit. As he got alongside the tractor he heard an air leak, and got up on the tractor to check the leak. As he reached for the air hose, he slipped and fell, sustaining bodily injuries.
The Court of Appeals held that, even giving a broad definition to the terms loading and unloading as found appropriate in Bell v Boutell, 141 Mich App 802 (1985) and its progeny, the court was unable to conclude that plaintiff was injured while loading or unloading the trailers. In this case, unlike other cases dealing with the issue of loading/unloading, the plaintiff was not specifically dealing with the cargo or freight involved. In the present case, plaintiff had no intention on dealing with the cargo or freight Plaintiff did not load the trailer which was delivered to the yard in Canada, nor was he required to unload it Additionally, plaintiff was to return to Detroit with an empty trailer. Thus, according to the Court of Appeals, plaintiff was not loading or unloading the trailer at the time he sustained his injury. There was no evidence that he was aiding in the loading or unloading process. Plaintiff’s mere delivery of a previously loaded trailer and his subsequent attempt at connecting an empty trailer to the tractor cannot be construed as "activities preparatory to the actual lifting onto or lowering of property" or "acts incidental to the completion of the loading or unloading process."
The Court of Appeals also held that plaintiff was not performing mechanical work when he attempted to reconnect the leaking air hose. Although the term "doing mechanical work" must be liberally interpreted according to previous decisions, in the present case, plaintiff was performing a "circle check" of the tractor-trailer when he heard the leak. According to the testimony of other witnesses, it was the responsibility of the driver to connect the hoses as part of the "normal routine in a driver's hook-up." Further, evidence showed that it was not uncommon for an air leak to develop, and that when this occurred, it is not common for a driver to call a mechanic to remedy the leak. Further evidence established that this was not mechanical work or repair work to reconnect hoses. Plaintiffs attempt at remedying the leaky air hose by reconnecting it, was not activity designed to maintain or repair the truck. Therefore, plaintiff was not doing mechanical work at the time he sustained his injuries, and was not precluded by the parked vehicle provisions of §3106(2)(a) of the act which would preclude no-fault benefits for injuries occurring during the process of loading, unloading, or doing mechanical work on a vehicle, unless the injury arose from the use or operation of another vehicle.
In his dissent, Judge Griffin would find that the plaintiff was doing mechanical work on the parked vehicle at the time of his injury. Accordingly, Judge Griffin would hold that plaintiff was barred by operation of §3106(2) from collecting no-fault benefits for his injuries.
