Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 88884; Unpublished
Judges Gribbs, Holbrook, Jr., and Lambros; 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) of the Act and concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits because he was involved in the final stages of the loading process and thus disqualified from receiving benefits under this section.
In this particular case, plaintiff had attached two fully loaded trailers by use of a mechanical dolly to the tractor he was scheduled to drive. After he connected the loaded trailers, he exited the vehicle, left the driver's door open and the engine running, and hooked up the air hoses for the brakes and checked all of the lights on the tractors and trailers. Plaintiff then reentered the tractor and with the rear door of the trailer open, pulled the tractor and trailer away from the loading dock so as to leave enough room to close the rear doors safely after checking out the equipment. At this point, plaintiff got out of the tractor and walked to the back of the trailer and climbed inside of the trailer to "make sure that they had loaded everything in there correctly." This was standard company policy. After checking the load, plaintiff attempted to pull the rear door down with a cord. The door would not come down. A supervisor came over to help plaintiff and proceeded to cut the cord with wire clippers. This caused the door to suddenly come down striking plaintiff and severely injuring his shoulder.
In ruling that plaintiff was still involved in the loading process, the court stated, "Although the trailer was loaded before plaintiff arrived, the loading process was not complete as is indicated by the fact that plaintiff had to check the load to insure that everything was loaded properly and then close the trailer door. These steps had to be taken before the loading process could be deemed complete. We find this result unavoidable considering that a broad interpretation of loading and unloading is to be applied. This result is also consistent with the legislative purpose to eliminate duplication of benefits for work-related injuries except where the actual driving or operation of a vehicle is involved." In arriving at this conclusion, the court reviewed several prior appellate decisions broadly construing loading and unloading for purposes of §3106(2), including the decisions in Marshall v Roadway Express (Item No. 881), Bell v FJ Boutell (Item No. 830), MacDonald v Michigan Mutual (Item No. 924), Gibbs v UPS (Item No. 961), and Gray v Liberty Mutual (Item No. 911).
[Author's Comment: This decision was mistakenly omitted from earlier supplements and is included herein for completeness.]
