Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 90837; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Sullivan, and Thomas; 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:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court that plaintiff’s injury did not occur while he was unloading his vehicle in the course of his employment, and therefore, plaintiff was entitled to no-fault benefits. In yet another decision dealing with the parked vehicle loading/unloading provisions of §3106(2), the majority held that the facts, as found by the trial court, supported the conclusion that plaintiff had completed the unloading process prior to this injury, and therefore, he was entitled to no-fault benefits.
Plaintiff was a truck driver making deliveries of freight for Interstate Motor Freight (IMF). He stopped for a delivery at a floral shop in Muskegon, and after completing the delivery by unloading the cartons from his truck, and completing the respective paperwork, he got back into the cab of his truck while looking over his "bills" he noted that the next stop called for the delivery of one carton As he did not recall seeing that carton in the trailer, he went back out and climbed into the trailer to check on the carton. Without moving any freight, plaintiff located the carton and then began to exit the trailer when he slipped on the wet steel plate and took a nosedive off the back end.
The defendant contended that the trial court clearly erred in finding that plaintiff’s actions were not preparatory to the unloading of the freight at the next stop. While recognizing that the terms "loading and unloading" have been broadly construed in other cases so as to encompass activities preparatory to the actual lifting onto or lowering of property, the majority in this case concluded that these activities were not incidental to the unloading of cartons nor were they "preparatory to the actual unloading of property at plaintiff’s next stop." Therefore, §3106(2) did not preclude plaintiff from receiving no-fault benefits.
Judge Sawyer, dissenting, felt that the relevant inquiry in these types of cases should be whether the injured person was performing the task of a driver of a motor vehicle or the talks of a freight handler. Although this distinction becomes more difficult to discern when the same employee performs both types of work, in the instant case, plaintiff’s action of going into the trailer to determine the presence of the package for his next delivery is more consistent with the duties of a freight handler than with the duties of a truck driver.
