Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 115533; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Holbrook, Jr., and Shepherd; 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 (Other Motorized Devices) [§3101(2)(e)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that where plaintiff was struck by an electrical flatbed delivery vehicle that was used to deliver beverages to concession stands in a race course, plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits because the vehicle was not a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the no-fault statute.
The court held that §3101(2)(c) states that a motor vehicle is something with more than two wheels and is operated or designed for operation upon a public highway. Here the electric delivery vehicle was not operated on a highway at the time of the incident. Moreover, the vehicle had no windshield, doors, turn signals, windows, backup lights, speedometer, odometer, or gears. It had a 36 volt DC motor and a maximum speed of only nine mph. It was not registered with the Secretary of State and did not bear license plates. In holding that this was not a motor vehicle for purposes of no-fault, the court cited Jones v Employers Insurance of Wausau (Item No. 1005), which dealt with a forklift that was similarly constructed. The court also cited Ebernickel v State Farm (Item No. 829), dealing with a high-lo that was held not to be a motor vehicle under the Act.
