Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 125382; Unpublished
Judges Brennan, Gribbs, and Fitzgerald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (Trailers) [§3101(2)(e)]
Specific Exclusions from Motor Vehicle Definition [§3101(2)(e)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant insurance company on the issue of whether the vehicle which caused plaintiffs injury was a motor vehicle under the No-Fault Act or an implement of husbandry as defined in §3101(2)(e).
Sean Weber, the child of the insured, was severely brain injured when hit by a "grain cart" attached to the insured's pickup truck. Mrs. Weber drove the pickup truck with the attached grain cart to a neighbor's house for the purpose of getting oats. After getting the oats, she drove to a grain elevator to be weighed. The grain cart, which was primarily used to store oats in the Weber barn, had no license plates and was not registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles. When they arrived home, the truck and grain cart were driven into the barn. The grain cart was then unhooked from the truck and was being manually pushed into a corner of the barn when Sean Weber was hit by the cart.
The trial court held that the plaintiff’s grain cart was an implement of husbandry and therefore not covered as a motor vehicle under the No-Fault Act. The provisions of §3101 (2)(e) were amended in 1984 to specifically exclude farm tractors and implements of husbandry, which are not required to be registered under the motor vehicle code from the definition of motor vehicle under the No-Fault Act. Plaintiff contended that the grain cart was a "trailer" and, therefore, fell within the definition of a motor vehicle, which defines a motor vehicle as a "vehicle, including a trailer, operated or designed for operation on a public highway by power other than muscular power which has more than two wheels."
Construing the exclusion language of the statute, the Court of Appeals held that the specific exclusion in this section applies to farm tractors and implements of husbandry. Here, the cart clearly falls within the definition of implement of husbandry. Such implements of husbandry may realistically be pulled by a vehicle other than a tractor, even though not designed to be so pulled. Such a situation, in which the implement of husbandry is being used as a trailer, does not change the court's ruling, as implements of husbandry are specifically excluded from coverage without regard to its use.
