United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Docket No. 90-CV-70632-DT;
Opinion by Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff; Published
Official Federal Reporter Citation: 742 F Supp 1348; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [§3106(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.1, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion, Judge Zatkoff found that plaintiff truck driver was not involved in the loading and unloading of his truck for purposes of the parked vehicle workers' compensation exclusion contained in §3106(2) of the Act, because, under the facts of this case, the loading and unloading operation had ended and plaintiff was not personally responsible for loading and unloading the cargo he was carrying at the time of the accident.
The operative facts regarding plaintiff’s injury were as follows: plaintiff was driving his tractor trailer with a load of steel on the 1-69 expressway when he was informed by another trucker over the CB radio that his chains had come loose and/or were broken. Plaintiff stopped his vehicle and while exiting the cab, slipped and struck his head. Judge Zatkoff ruled that plaintiff was not barred by §3106(2) because the loading operation had stopped prior to the beginning of plaintiff’s trip. The court stated that the defendant's attempts to broaden the definition of loading and unloading to encompass the facts in this case "would make the loading and unloading process circular and never ending. Plaintiff would actually be in the process of loading or unloading regardless of what plaintiff was doing or where his truck was located… At some point, loading and unloading of a vehicle must stop so that the vehicle can be operated and the goods delivered." The court went on to say that, "Plaintiff did not personally load the steel on his truck nor would he have been capable of doing so. As a result, plaintiff had no duty or responsibility to load or unload his vehicle. As plaintiff has correctly asserted, the loading process was finished when plaintiff drove his truck out onto the road. Instead of loading, plaintiff was engaged in operating his truck and delivering the steel."
The court distinguished the cases of Raymond v Commercial Carriers (Item No. 1163) and Crawford v Allstate (Item No. 1028). The court noted that in those cases, the truck drivers were responsible for personally loading and unloading cars onto tractor-trailers and responsible for properly securing their load. The court stated, "these facts alone distinguish those cases from the facts surrounding this instance."
