Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 109076; Published
Judges Wahls, Doctoroff, and Brennan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 179 Mich App 637; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability of Non-Motorist Defendants [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion by Judge Wahls, the Court of Appeals held that the tort abrogation provisions of the Michigan No-Fault Act did not bar a common law cause of action for breach of a bailment contract.
In this case, the defendant went to a car dealership and asked to test drive a new car. During the test drive, the defendant had an accident that totally destroyed the vehicle. Plaintiff (subrogee of the car dealership) sued defendant, alleging that defendant operated the vehicle pursuant to an express or implied bailment contract, wherein defendant agreed to return the vehicle in the same condition and keep the vehicle safe and free from any damage.
In reversing the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant, the Court of Appeals stated:
"That a bailment contract may be created under circumstances such as those present in this case is not in any way surprising. Defendant was given the temporary use of the car owned by Martin Chevrolet for the special purpose of test driving it. Clearly, an implicit, though perhaps unwritten, prerequisite of such use was that defendant agreed to return the car in the same condition it was in when driven away from the dealership."
The court further stated:
"The no-fault act in large measure abolished tort liability for injuries or damage arising from the ownership, maintenance or use in Michigan of a motor vehicle. However, the act did not abolish contractual liability for losses arising from the use of a motor vehicle."
The court cited National Ben Franklin v Bakhaus Contractors (Item No. 637); Kinnunen v Bohlinger (Item No. 718); and Hengartner v Chet Swanson Sales, Inc (Item No. 723).
