Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 93512; Unpublished
Judges Danhof, Weaver, and Batzer; 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:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary disposition in favor of defendant which ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault work loss benefits under the terms of §3106(2) because plaintiff was "doing mechanical work" in the course of his employment when he suffered injury while inspecting the radiator fluid levels of his semi-tractor trailer. Plaintiff was a truck driver who was experiencing problems with his engine as he was about to leave his employer's work facility. He pulled the vehicle into a repair area and was in the process of checking fluid levels under the hood when he slipped and fell, thereby injuring himself. The injury occurred during the course of his employment In finding that plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under §3106(2) because plaintiff was doing mechanical work, the court cited the decision in Marshall v Roadway Express, 146 Mich App 753 (1985) and MacDonald v Michigan Mutual, 155 Mich App 650 (1986). Based on those decisions, "mechanical work" is that work normally done by a mechanic for the purpose of maintaining or repairing a vehicle. It is also any activity that is routinely performed in the vehicle's operation and that is designed to maintain or repair the vehicle. An individual is doing mechanical work within the meaning of the statute when he is engaged in repairing a defect, performing preventative maintenance or making an adjustment to alter operating characteristics.
In footnote 1, the court somewhat limited its holding by stating, "we do not opine that an under the hood check of fluid levels is always under all circumstances maintenance that constitutes mechanical work within the meaning of the statute. The fact that there were mechanical problems, the rig never let company grounds, and the accident occurred in the repair area are important circumstances in the result we reach."
The court also held that it was not material that plaintiff’s job title was truck driver as opposed to mechanic. The court held that the "nature of the activity engaged in at the time of the injury is controlling" as opposed to the person's job title. Finally, the court held that whether the plaintiff was an "occupant" would not change the result.
