Berrien County Circuit Court; Docket No. 83-789-CR-W; Unpublished
Judge William S. White; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion by Judge White, the trial court awarded no-fault benefits pursuant to §3105(1) to a plaintiff who was injured when he fell from a ladder while cutting down a tree limb overhanging a house. The limb was attached by a cable to the bumper of plaintiff’s truck which was being used to apply tension to prevent the limb from falling on the house. The truck was being slowly driven forward to increase tension when the limb snapped before plaintiff had finished cutting it. At the time of the accident, the truck was partially on a private driveway-and partially on the street and the ladder was on the ground leaning against the tree trunk.
Judge White concluded that a sufficient causal connection existed between the operation of plaintiff’s truck and his injuries. The opinion states in pertinent part:
"Occupancy of the motor vehicles is not determinative, although it is relevant More important is whether the vehicle was an instrumentality of the injury. Where the use of the vehicle is one of the causes of the injury, there is a sufficient causal connection, even though there is an independent cause. Almost any causal connection is sufficient However, when the injury is entirely the result of an independent cause in no way related to the use of the vehicle, the fact that the vehicle is the situs of the injury is not sufficient Clearly, on the stipulated facts, the use of the truck was at least a 'but, for” cause of plaintiff s injuries. But, for the use of the truck to create tension to keep the limb off the roof, the limb would not have snapped as it did and plaintiff would not have been injured as he was. The connection was more than fortuitous or incidental. The stipulated facts indicate that the use of the truck to apply tension was a conscious and intentional choice. The truck was a consciously included part of the operation to remove me tree limb. It was chosen, quite possibly because of its mobility, to apply tension in varying degrees. . . .This Court finds that driving and pulling are foreseeably identifiable
with the normal use of a pick-up truck. Further, the operation of the truck was an integral part of the tree trimming mechanism and therefore an instrumentality of the injuries which arose out of the use of a motor vehicle. That the exact circumstances which caused the injury were not foreseen nor contemplated is no defense."
