Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 66226; Published
Judges Brennan, Shepherd, and Quinnell; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Shepherd
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 131 Mich App 349; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
Exclusion for Vehicles Considered Parked [§3106(1)]
Causal Connection Requirement [§3106]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous Opinion by Judge Shepherd deals with the claim of a mobile crane operator for recovery of no-fault benefits as a result of a fall from the crane which occurred while the crane was rigged to perform its function "as a crane." The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed for entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant.
The mobile crane in question was a load-lifting device mounted on a truck chassis. The truck chassis had multiple wheels and was operated by an internal combustion engine and was designed to be operated on the highway while in the "travel mode." Plaintiff drove the mobile crane unit to the job site whereupon it was rigged for use as a crane. This procedure involved setting outriggers, attaching counter weights, etc. Upon completion of the rigging operation, the mobile crane could no longer be driven as a vehicle.
Plaintiff sustained his injury when he was climbing out of the driving cab (the place from where the crane is operated when driven on a highway), lost his footing and fell. He caught himself before actually hitting the ground but in the process ruptured a disc in his back.
The Court held that in order for plaintiff to recover benefits, the accident must fall within one of the three favored exceptions to the parked vehicle provisions of §3106 and must also satisfy the "arising out of requirements of §3105. The Court made the following holdings:
First, the mobile crane was indeed a "motor vehicle" because it was designed to be operated upon the public highway by other than muscular power and had more than two wheels. See §3101. The dual purpose of the crane standing by itself is not sufficient to remove it from "motor vehicle" status under §3105(1). The Court analogized to the previous decision in Kelly v Inter-City Truck Lines (item number 606) where the court held that a trailer which was unattached to a truck cab was still a motor vehicle under the No-Fault Act. Therefore, the mobile crane in this case, remained a motor vehicle for purposes of the No-Fault Act even though it was being used as a crane.
Second, the Court held that the plaintiff's injuries satisfied §3106(c) of the parked vehicle provisions (occupying, entering into or alighting from a vehicle) because plaintiff was climbing out of the driving cab of the vehicle when he fell.
The third issue, however, was fatal to plaintiff's case. The Court held that the plaintiff's accident did not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle "as a motor vehicle" within the meaning of §3105(1). The Court reasoned that once a dual function motor unit such as this mobile crane has been converted to a "sole non-locomotory function" it is no longer being used as a "motor vehicle." This does not mean that the unit must actually be moving. Rather, it is the functional capacity of the unit at the time of injury which is determinative. The Court stated:
"A dual-function unit which has not been converted, e.g., one which is merely parked or stopped while functioning under its motor vehicle design, would still be a parked vehicle under §3106. Thus, interpreting the 'as a motor vehicle' language to relate to the function of a vehicle at the time of an accident should impose liability with respect to a dual function unit only when in use in its locomotory function. Converted solely to its other function, the unit would fall outside the statute. A dual unit operating as both would fall within the motor vehicle liability provision."
