Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87440; Unpublished
Judges Holbrook, Jr., Wahls, and Dodge; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (Forklifts) [§3101(2)(e)]
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Motor Vehicle Involvement [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Holbrook, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant Employers Insurance of Wausau on the ground that plaintiff’s injury did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle within the meaning of §3101(2)(c).
Plaintiff was injured while performing work enclosed in a cage which had been raised by a forklift to allow him to cut metal away from the face of a building. The cage and forklift were used in this way as a substitute for scaffolding to reach the metal on the building. Plaintiff sustained severe back injuries when the cage fell off the forklift to the ground. Plaintiff brought suit against Wausau as the insurer of the lessor of the forklift, alleging that his injuries arose out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of the forklift as a motor vehicle.
The Court of Appeals noted that the forklift at issue had four wheels, an engine and was self-propelled. In addition, there was no dispute that plaintiff’s injuries occurred while the forklift was being operated in the parking lot of the construction site and not on a public highway. The dispute at issue was whether the forklift that was used to raise plaintiff’s case was designed for operation on a public highway.
In reliance upon Ebernickel v State Farm (Item No. 829) and Apperson v Citizens Mutual (Item No. 691), the Court of Appeals held that although the forklift at issue could be operated on a public highway, it was not at the time of the accident. The ability to use the forklift on the highway does not indicate that it was "designed” for such use. Since the forklift at issue had one seat and no windshield, no windows, no doors, no turn signals, no backup lights, no headlights, no tail-lights, no speedometer and no odometer, the Court reasoned that the forklift was not a motor vehicle within the meaning of §3101(2)(c).
