Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Ebernickel v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co; (COA-PUB, 4/2/1985; RB #829)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 79139; Published  
Judges Brennan, Cynar, and Fitzgerald; Unanimous; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 141 Mich App 729; Link to Opinion alt   


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
Security Requirement Applicable for Highway Use [§3101(1)]  
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]  
Definition of Motor Vehicle (Forklifts) [§3101(2)(e)]  
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Motor Vehicle Involvement [§3105(1)]

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable   


CASE SUMMARY:  
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits when he was run over from behind by a piece of equipment called a "hi-lo." The accident occurred on private property when Plaintiff was walking from one part of a job site to another. The vehicle had four wheels, lights and an exhaust system. The testimony revealed that the machine "could be operated on the highway." However, it was not alleged that it was being operated on a highway at the time of the accident The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on the basis that the hi-lo was not a motor vehicle for purposes of §3101(2)(c). The Court of Appeals affirmed. It distinguished the previous decision in Citizens v Detloff (Item No. 181), which awarded benefits for an accident involving a forklift which was actually operated on a public highway. In distinguishing Detloff, this panel stated, "In Detloff, the forklift was operated on a public highway. Plaintiff here did not allege the forklift was operated on a public highway. Plaintiff’s claim can only succeed if the hi-lo in question is found to be a motor vehicle since it was not alleged to have been operated on a public highway." The court went on to say that the vehicle also was not intended to be operated primarily on public highways. The court noted that "if the hi-lo was an item designed primarily for highway use, Plaintiff would have been covered" However, Plaintiff made no such allegations. Therefore, the hi-lo was not a covered motor vehicle.


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram