Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 54802; Published
Judges Maher, Holbrook, and Robinson; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 112 Mich App 511; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Maher dealing with the "alighting" provisions of §3106(c) the Court of Appeals awarded no-fault benefits to a plaintiff who injured himself when he stepped into a hole as he was exiting his employer's vehicle. Plaintiff was carrying some items weighing approximately thirty pounds. He began to climb out of his vehicle, placed his right foot on the ground, and then brought his left foot down into a hole in the ground which caused injury to the left ankle and lower back. When the accident took place, the Plaintiff was not in physical contact with the vehicle.
The Circuit Court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding that plaintiff was not "alighting from the vehicle" within the meaning of §3106(c) because the plaintiff was no longer in physical contact with the vehicle when the injury occurred. The Court of Appeals disagreed. In ruling that plaintiff’s injuries did arise out of plaintiff's "alighting" from the vehicle, the Court held, "although it is unnecessary to attempt a complete definition of the term [alighting] at this time, we are convinced that an individual has not finished 'alighting' from a vehicle at least until both feet are planted firmly on the ground. Consequently, we hold that the Circuit Court erred in concluding that plaintiff’s injuries did not fall within §3106(c)."
The Court went on to state that in order to recover benefits in connection with a parked vehicle, the claimant must establish both the applicability of one of the subsections of §3106, and, in addition, that the injuries arose out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of the motor vehicle, pursuant to §3105(1). With regard to this second part of the analysis, the Court stated that it was "a close question" but held "that an injury caused by stepping into a hole in the road is foreseeably identifiable with the process of alighting from a vehicle. Such road hazards are hardly unusual or unexpected."
Thus, there was a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the use of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.
Finally, the Court made an interesting observation with regard to the use of summary judgment in these kinds of first party cases. The Court held that a matter does not involve disputed issues of fact merely because the parties disagree over whether a certain set of facts satisfies a statutory term. The Court stated, "The parties agree on the events that transpired oh the day in question. They only disagree about whether those events establish that plaintiff was 'alighting' and that his injuries 'arose out of the use of a vehicle.' These are legal issues, not factual issues."
