Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 82672; Published
Judges Holbrook, T. M. Burns, and Caprathe; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 146 Mich App 753; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exclusion for Parked Vehicles Covered by Workers Comp [§3106(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion deals with the parked vehicle-loading, unloading and mechanical work provisions of §3106(2) of the act. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling that plaintiff was disqualified by that section from receiving no-fault benefits.
Plaintiff in this case was a truck driver. He drove his tractor-trailer rig to defendant's terminal where he began unhitching the trailer. When plaintiff unhooked the brake lines, the tractor rolled forward striking plaintiff and injuring him. The trial court ruled that plaintiff was disqualified by §3106(2) for the reason that he was either loading or unloading at the time or doing mechanical work on the vehicle. The Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that plaintiff was not injured while preparing to unload, but was rather injured while detaching his tractor from the trailer so that he could continue working. The court stated, "There is no evidence whatsoever that detaching the trailer in any way aided the unloading process."
The appellate court also ruled that plaintiff was not doing mechanical work on the vehicle at the time of his injury. The legislative history of §3106(2) indicates that it was passed because of concerns of the trucking industry that mechanics were collecting no-fault benefits for injuries that occurred while they were doing repair and maintenance work on vehicles. In this particular case, plaintiff was not performing mechanical work. The court stated:
"While a broad definition of that term may be appropriate, we do not feel that it should include activity which is not designed to maintain or repair the truck and is routinely performed in the truck's operation. . . . We feel that 'mechanical work' means that work normally done by a mechanic which is for the purpose of maintaining or repairing the vehicle. Plaintiff was removing the trailer from his tractor for increased mobility not to maintain or repair it."
Finally, in footnote 1, the court noted that the parked vehicle provisions may not even be applicable to this case. In this regard, the court stated, "The parties assume that the parked vehicle exception, §3106, applies to this case. While we have doubts that injuries caused by a moving vehicle fall within §3106, we assume so for the purposes of this appeal."
