Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.90800; Published
Judges Sullivan, Shepherd, and Sinister; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 158 Mich App 431; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Shepherd, the Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary disposition in favor of Defendant in a case in which the defendant insurer claimed that the injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle.
Plaintiff sustained injury while attending a horse race. The injuries occurred after the starting gate, which was permanently affixed to a 1979 Cadillac, pulled away from the horses and started to leave the truck. Because of mechanical failure or human error, the gate failed to close. It passed beyond the railing and into the crowd, injuring plaintiff.
Both plaintiff and defendant filed motions for summary disposition on the question whether the insurance carrier was obligated to provide no-fault benefits under the circumstances. Defendant insurer argued that the starting gate vehicle either was not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the No-Fault Act, or that it was not being used as a motor vehicle at the time of injury. In addition, defendant argued that the injuries were not "foreseeably identifiable" with the normal use, maintenance, or ownership of a motor vehicle. The trial court denied the insurer's motion for summary disposition and granted plaintiff’s motion. Thereafter, a "partial judgment" was entered in plaintiff’s favor, and ordered that plaintiff was entitled to all applicable Michigan no-fault benefits from defendant.
Four and one-half months after the partial judgment was entered, defendant moved for reconsideration on the same grounds as previously argued. Defense counsel at that hearing argued that the "foreseeability issue" had not previously been addressed. The trial court agreed and thereafter entered an order which in effect reopened the issue of foreseeability. Subsequently, the court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, thereby finding plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the order of summary disposition. The Court ruled that defendant's failure to appeal the "partial judgment" prevented the Court from reopening the liability issue by means of an inquiry into foreseeability. In the context of a no-fault case where the judgment provides that plaintiff is entitled to "all applicable Michigan no-fault benefits", the Court of Appeals ruled that this was a sufficient determination of both liability and damages to render the judgment final. On this basis absent evidence of a controversy over the reasonableness or necessity of the losses claimed, the judgment is final and was effectively a declaratory judgment on defendant's liability under the No-Fault Act. As such, it was res judicata as to the issue of "foreseeability."
