Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 132369; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Holbrook, Jr., and Fitzgerald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Security Requirement Applicable for Highway Use [§3101(1)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Definition of Motor Vehicle (Other Motorized Devices) [§3101(2)(e)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals interpreted the provisions of §3101(2)(e) defining a "motor vehicle" in a case where property damage was caused in a collision between an automobile and a vehicle equipped with "hyrail" equipment enabling it to ride on railroad tracks at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeals held that the pickup truck equipped with the "hy-rail" equipment was, nevertheless, a motor vehicle covered by the no-fault act.
In this case, an automobile driven by Robert Price, Hartford's insured, was involved in a collision with a 1982 Ford pickup truck owned and operated by Mid-Michigan Railroad. The pickup truck was equipped with hyrail equipment which enabled it to ride the rails. The hyrail equipment was mounted on the vehicle frame and could be lowered to guide the truck along the railroad track. A steering lock assembly holds the steering wheel in place during track operation to guard against derailment. After the truck has completed its duties on the track, the hyrailers are raised and the truck can then return to the public highway. The collision occurred on Lincoln Lake Road at the railroad right-of-way while the truck was in fact operating on the railroad tracks. As a result of the collision, Price's vehicle was a total loss and Hartford paid Price for this loss. Hartford then sought to be reimbursed from Mid-Michigan Railroad and argued that because the pickup truck was not a motor vehicle at the time of the accident the claim of Hartford was not subject to the no-fault act provisions, which preclude recovery for its property damage payment to its insured. The trial court found that the motor vehicle was in fact covered by the No-Fault Act, and, accordingly, granted summary disposition in favor of Mid-Michigan Railroad.
On appeal, Hartford contended that because the pickup truck was not a motor vehicle at the time of the accident, the no-fault act did not apply. Relying on the provisions of §3101(2)(e), the court noted that under the act “'motor vehicle’ means a vehicle... operated or designed for operation on a public highway by power other than muscular power which has more than two wheels...”
The court held that there was no dispute that the pickup truck was designed for operation upon a public highway. Plaintiff’s only argument was that the truck was not at the time of the accident designed for operation upon a public highway. The court, relying upon the earlier decision in Johnston v Hartford Insurance Company, 131 Mich App 349 (1984), held that the dual purpose of the truck standing by itself is insufficient to remove it from "motor vehicle" statute under §3l01(2)(e). The truck met the statutory requirements for a "motor vehicle" because it was designed to be operated on the public highway. Even though it could not be driven on the highway at the time the accident occurred, it was mobile at that time, and once the job was completed, it would have been altered and driven away on the highway. Therefore, the court held that the vehicle remained a motor vehicle for purposes of the no-fault act even when it was being driven on the rails.
