Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 78025; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Maher, and Chrzanowski; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 141 Mich App 99; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability of Non-Motorist Defendants [§3135]
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff’s suit for damages for personal injury based upon an automobile mechanic's negligence was not barred nor restricted by the tort limitation provisions (§3135) of the no-fault insurance act The plaintiff in this case alleged that during the course of repairs on her automobile, and as a result of the negligence of defendant's mechanic, a radiator hose clamp was improperly released causing plaintiff to be sprayed with radiator fluid. Defendant contended that it was entitled to the benefit of the tort limitation provisions of the no-fault act. The Court of Appeals disagreed and relied upon the Supreme Court's opinion in-Citizens Ins Co v Tuttle (Item No. 391). The court stated, "although this case is admittedly closer than the scenario presented in Tuttle because the defendant mechanic was actually working on an automobile at the time of the alleged negligence, the defendant mechanic was, in fact, a nonmotorist tortfeasor. Neither the garage owner defendant, nor the mechanic defendant was required to purchase no-fault insurance to cover their conduct as garage owners and mechanics. Thus, permitting these defendants to avoid tort liability for actions for which they have not contributed premium payments will, in effect, cause motorist tortfeasors to pay for their asserted negligence. We do not believe that the no-fault insurance act was intended to bring about this result"
