Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 85250; Published
Judges R. B. Burns, Maher, and Brouillette; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 153 Mich App 829; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Entering Into or Alighting From [§3106(1)(c)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary disposition order entered by the circuit court granting defendant's motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The issue in this case was whether the defendant was entitled to the tort immunity of §3135. Based upon its analysis of §3105 and §3106, the Court determined that plaintiff was required to establish a threshold injury, and that the nature of plaintiff s injuries did not meet the serious impairment of body function threshold because they were not "objectively manifested."
Plaintiff was injured when she fell down the steps of a bus owned by defendant Grand Rapids Area Transit Authority. She contended that, as she was alighting from the bus, she slipped on a plastic bag, fell backwards and down the remaining steps.
The trial court ruled from the bench that a fall while alighting from a bus is foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the vehicle as a motor vehicle, and therefore within the contemplation of §3106 of the No-Fault Statute. Further, the trial court found that since plaintiff’s injuries were governed by the provisions of the No-Fault Act, plaintiff had failed to state a claim under the Act.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly ruled that the accident was one which involved a person alighting from a "parked vehicle” as defined by §3106. Further, the Court held that the injury arose out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle as defined by §3105 of the statute. The Court noted that is relevant to this case is that plaintiff tripped on debris while using the bus as a motor vehicle. Having satisfied the requirements of §3105 and §3106, the Court ruled that summary disposition on the serious impairment issue was appropriate.
