Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 61404; Published
Judges Kelly, R.B. Burns, and Benson; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 130 Mich App 602; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Permanently Mounted Equipment Use [§3106(1)(b)]
Exception for Loading / Unloading [§3106(1)(b)]
Exception for Occupying [§3106(1)(c)]
Exception for Entering Into or Alighting From [§3106(1)(c)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a denial of no-fault benefits to plaintiff under the parked vehicle exclusions of §3106(l)(b) and (c). The plaintiff in this case was injured when a bale elevator, commonly used in farming operation for elevating hay, collapsed and fell on plaintiff. The elevator fell while it was in position at the tailgate of a truck after it had been used to load a full truck load of Christmas trees. The elevator was not permanently afixed to the truck but, rather was manually moved from pile to pile. The accident occurred after plaintiff had alighted from the truck to move the elevator to another pile of trees. The truck's motor was running at the time, although the truck was not moving. Plaintiff walked to the rear of the truck and touched the elevator at which time it collapsed and fell on plaintiff causing him to suffer serious injuries.
The Court denied benefits under §3106(l)(b) for the reason that the bale elevator was neither permanently mounted to the truck, nor had it ever been "loaded" onto the truck so that the act of wheeling the elevator away from the vehicle could not be said to be encompassed within the loading or unloading process. This was contrasted with the case of Arnold v Auto-Owners (item-number 86) wherein plaintiff was injured when he was lifting a loading dock skid onto a semi-trailer in the course of loading new automobiles onto the trailer. In the case at bar, the bale elevator was simply a separate piece of equipment neither a part of the truck nor an item that was loaded onto the truck as part of the loading process.
The Court also denied benefits under §3106(l)(c) on the basis that plaintiff was not entering into, occupying or alighting from the vehicle. The undisputed facts showed that plaintiff had left the cab of the truck and had walked to the rear of the vehicle when the elevator collapsed. At the time of the mishap, the process of alighting from the vehicle had been completed. The Court specifically rejected plaintiff’s argument advocating "application of the extended occupancy rule of Nickerson v Citizens Mutual" The Court distinguished Nickerson on the basis that in the case at bar, plaintiff’s truck did not cause his injuries but, rather, the injuries were caused by a new instrumentality, the bale elevator."
