Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #264300; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, O’Connell, and Murray; 2-1 (Judge Murphy concurring); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Entering Into or Alighting From [3106(1)(c)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals determined that plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under the parked vehicle provisions of MCL 500.3106 because she was neither alighting from nor entering into the automobile when her injury occurred. The plaintiff in this case was injured after she had exited the drivers side of the car in order to walk to the passenger’s side. As she neared the car’s rear tire, she slipped and fell. Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under MCL 500.3106(1). The trial court denied defendant’s motion. In reversing, the Court of Appeals reasoned that under the facts of this case, plaintiff was neither alighting from or entering into the vehicle when the accident occurred. In this regard, the court stated:
“. . . [P]laintiff was not injured while alighting from the vehicle. She testified that she got out of the car, closed the door, and was walking toward the back of the car. She did not fall until she reached the rear passenger tire. Thus, she had already descended from the vehicle and removed herself from its confines when she fell. Indeed, she could not have closed the car door if she had not first removed herself from the confines of the vehicle. Moreover, contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, plaintiff’s feet were firmly planted on the ground if she was able to close the car door and walk toward the rear of the car. Accordingly, plaintiff was not ‘alighting from’ the vehicle within the meaning of MCL 500.3106(1)(c) when she was injured. . . . Moreover, plaintiff was not yet ‘entering into’ the vehicle when she fell. . . . Although MCL 500.3106(1)(c) allows recovery of benefits if a person is injured while ‘entering into’ a parked vehicle, this Court stated that ‘the express language of § 3106(1)(c) does not address the intent of the injured person.’ . . . Similarly, in the instant case, it is irrelevant that plaintiff intended to enter her vehicle through the driver’s side door at the time of her fall.”
