Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 116601; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Shepherd, and Doctoroff; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Motor Vehicle Involvement [§3105(1)]
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals denied no-fault benefits to plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice after exiting his employer's truck to inspect the rear doors of the vehicle. While plaintiff was pulling on a padlock on the trailer door, he slipped on ice and fell to the ground, sustaining a herniated disc in the process. Immediately before the incident, plaintiff had started the engine and exited the cab while the engine was still running. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the vehicle was stopped rather than parked. The court held the vehicle was parked; and therefore, the parked vehicle provisions of §3106 apply. The court did not, however, deny plaintiff benefits on the basis that his injury failed to satisfy one of the parked vehicle exceptions. Rather, the court denied benefits for the reason that the "threshold requirement" of §3105 was not met, in that plaintiff’s injury did not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. In ruling that this requisite causal connection was absent, the court stated, "generally, a fall outside of a vehicle, regardless of the person's reason for being there, has been held to be only incidentally related to the vehicle as a vehicle, and, therefore, outside the scope of §3105… Plaintiffs fall in the instant case was not causally related to the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle."