Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 45223; Published
Judges Bronson, Brennan, and T.M. Burns; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 100 Mich App 635; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Exception for Occupying [§3106(1)(c)]
Exception for Vehicle Maintenance [§3106]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Motor Vehicle Code (Definition of Parking) (MCL 257.38)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals again wrestled with the availability of no-fault benefits in parked vehicle situations. In this case, plaintiff’s decedent was a self-employed mechanic who sustained fatal injuries while working on a dual wheel and tire assembly of a customer's truck when the wheel exploded. There was little question that §3105 of the no-fault statute applied in that the injuries "arose out of" the maintenance of a motor vehicle. The central issue was whether or not the vehicle was "parked," thereby calling into play the more restrictive provisions of §3106 or the statute.
The Court of Appeals held that the vehicle on which plaintiff’s decedent was performing maintenance was indeed "parked." Although the Court did not specifically define the word "parked" as it is used in §3106 of the statute, the Court made certain statements with regard to the parameters of the concept. First, the Court stated that the Motor Vehicle Code definition of "parking" (MCLA 257.38) does not limit the definition of parking under the no-fault statute to the standing of a vehicle upon a highway. Vehicles that are not on a highway can still be considered parked under the no-fault statute. However, because the Motor Vehicle Code pertains to the regulation of vehicles that are operated on public highways, it would apply to a vehicle that was standing on a highway and therefore, such a vehicle would not be deemed to be "parked" for purposes of the No-Fault Act Second, the Court noted that people who sustain injuries while performing repairs on parked vehicles, may be entitled to recover under §3106 on the basis that they are "occupying" the vehicle. The Court noted that "Michigan courts have broadly defined the term 'occupying' to include those who are not actually inside a vehicle at the time of injury. Accordingly, persons who have exited a car temporarily in order to make repairs might still be able to recover under the exception in MCLA 500.3106(c)."
After the Court concluded that the vehicle involved in this case was "parked," it remanded the case back to the trial court in order to determine if one of the three subsections of §3106 applied
