Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #316125; Unpublished
Judges Riordan, Donofrio, and Boonstra; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Unreasonably Parked Vehicles [§3106(1)(a)]
PIP Benefits Defined; Waiver of Work Loss Benefits [§3107]
Survivor’s Loss Benefits [§3108]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a motorcycle that struck a parked semi-trailer, killing the motorcyclist, the Court of Appeals held the semi-trailer’s insurer did not unreasonably refuse or delay survivor’s loss benefits to the motorcyclist’s spouse because the semi-trailer, which had pulled off the roadway, was not parked in a manner that created an “unreasonable risk of bodily injury” within the meaning of MCL 500.3106(1).
In so ruling, the Court of Appeals said §3106(1) “does not create a rule that whenever a motor vehicle is parked entirely or in part on a traveled portion of a road, the parked vehicle poses an unreasonable risk. … Therefore, factors such as the manner, location, and fashion in which a vehicle is parked are material to determining whether the parked vehicle poses an unreasonable risk.”
Plaintiff’s decedent was driving his motorcycle when it collided with a parked semi-trailer that had pulled onto the side of the road due to mechanical problems. The semi-trailer’s emergency flashers were activated, warning triangles were placed on the roadway, and the vehicle was not blocking any lanes. Visibility was clear and the road was dry. Plaintiff sought to recover no-fault benefits from defendant, which insured the semi-trailer. Defendant claimed plaintiff was not entitled to benefits because the semi-trailer was not parked in a way to cause unreasonable risk of bodily injury under §3106(1)(a). The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the semi-trailer was not parked in a manner that posed an unreasonable risk of bodily injury. The court said:
“The driver parked as close to the east side curb as possible, and the semi-truck and trailer did not protrude into any other lanes of traffic. The fact that the semi-truck and trailer was parked entirely on a traveled portion of Rawsonville Road in the right-hand lane does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the parked vehicle posed an unreasonable risk. … The accident occurred during the day in clear weather and under dry road conditions. Further, the driver had placed emergency warning triangles in the roadway behind the trailer. On these facts alone, there is nothing in the record to suggest that an oncoming driver traveling northbound on Rawsonville Road would not have had an ample opportunity to observe, react to, and avoid the hazard posed by the parked semi-truck and trailer. …To the contrary, the record reflects that a number of drivers in fact did so."
According to the Court of Appeals, even when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the semi-trailer did not pose an unreasonable risk to oncoming traffic. The court said:
“Plaintiff’s attempt to demonstrate the driver’s violation of a federal regulation requiring the activation of emergency flashers and placement of warning triangles is not sufficient to show that the parked semi-truck and trailer created an unreasonable risk within the meaning of MCL 500.3106(1)(a).”
Regarding plaintiff’s arguments that discovery in the case was premature, the Court of Appeals said that, even if additional discovery would have revealed factual support for a finding that maintenance was being performed on the parked semi-trailer, plaintiff could still not recover because the injury did not “arise out of” the alleged maintenance of the vehicle. Instead, the causal connection between maintenance on the semi-truck and the injuries suffered by plaintiff’s decedent was not “more than incidental, fortuitous, or ‘but for,’” the appeals court said.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court properly granted summary disposition for defendant.
