Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87666; Unpublished
Judges Beasley, R.B. Burns, and Lostracco; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; 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 unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals dealt with an earlier amendment to the parked vehicle-workers' compensation exclusion provisions of §3106(2) and held that plaintiff truck driver was entitled to no-fault benefits because his injury did not occur during the loading or unloading of a motor vehicle nor during activities that are preparatory to the actual lifting onto or lowering of property from the vehicle.
In this case, the plaintiff drove an empty tractor trailer to a Ford Motor Company plant. He dropped off the trailer and proceeded to hook up to a loaded trailer of paint. He attempted to raise "the landing gears" on the loaded tractor trailer because the truck could not be driven without the landing gears being in place. Plaintiff was injured while attempting to raise the landing gears. There is no indication that the raising of the landing gears aided the loading process. Furthermore, plaintiff took no part in the loading of paint onto the trailer. He merely unhitched from one trailer and hitched onto another so that he could drive the loaded trailer away. Under these circumstances, the trial court correctly ruled that plaintiff’s actions did not constitute loading or unloading.
In reaching its conclusion, the court discussed the prior holdings in Bell v FJ Boutell Company (Item No. 830) and Marshall v Roadway Express (Item No. 881). The court observed that the Bell and Marshall decisions actually employed two different tests. In this regard, the court stated, "The Bell test is whether the activity was preparatory to the loading or unloading of property as opposed to the actual driving or operation of the vehicle, whereas the Marshall test is whether the plaintiff was acting as a dock or warehouse worker as opposed to a driver. It is conceivable that these two tests would reach different results, requiring a court to choose between them."
[Author's Comment: This decision was mistakenly omitted from earlier supplements and is included herein for completeness.]
