Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 48636; Published
Judges Danhof, Cavanagh, and MacKenzie; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 104 Mich App 250; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this Opinion by Chief Judge Danhof, the Court of Appeals squarely rejected the previous decision in Citizens Insurance Company v Tuttle, item number 299. The plaintiff in this case was involved in an automobile collision at an intersection in a shopping center parking lot. The driver brought a lawsuit against the driver of the other car as well as the shopping center owner and the maintenance contractor for piling up snow in such a way as to obscure the vision of motorists. The trial Judge ruled that the plaintiff was required by §3135 of the Act to prove that her injuries resulted in serious impairment of body function and that her recovery was limited to noneconomic losses. Apparently, the trial court's ruling to this effect was based upon the previous decision in Citizens v Tuttle where the Court of Appeals had extended the tort immunities of the No-Fault Act to the owner of a cow which was negligently permitted to wander onto a highway.
In specifically rejecting Tuttle, the Court accepted the philosophy of another Court of Appeals opinion in Schwark v Lilly, item number 218. Judge Danhof wrote:
"We choose to follow the reasoning in Schwark and hold that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff had to prove serious impairment of bodily function in order to recover from all of the defendants in the instant case. The No-Fault Act did not apply to plaintiff’s claim against [the snow removal contractor and the parking lot owner] whose liability, if any, would arise out of negligent maintenance of the parking lot and not the ownership, maintenance or use of an automobile. The interpretation of the statute adopted in Tuttle could lead to far reaching and unfair consequences. For example, the serious impairment requirement might restrict the plaintiff’s right to bring a products liability action against an automobile manufacturer where a defect .in the vehicle results in injury. Furthermore, a plaintiff could be denied recovery of damages from the state under MCLA 691.1402 for negligent maintenance of a highway."
