Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.


Saunders v DAIIE; (COA-PUB, 2/25/1983; RB #617)


Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 63356; Published  
Judges Danhof, Gillis, and Deming; Unanimous; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 123 Mich App 570; Link to Opinion alt    

Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]

Not Applicable   

Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile owned and driven by her husband. She was seriously injured when she was struck by a projectile (either a rock or a piece of concrete) which was thrown through the open passenger window of the automobile. The source of the projectile was never determined. On the basis of the Court of Appeals opinion in Mann v DAIIE (item number 463), this panel reversed a directed verdict in favor of defendant and ruled that there was a sufficient causal relationship between plaintiff's injury and her use of a motor vehicle under §3105(1) of the Act. The Court noted that although it is generally true that an assault does not establish a requisite causal connection, there is an important distinction in those cases where a projectile is propelled at a moving vehicle. In that situation, the assault is directed at the automobile itself, rather than at the driver or the passenger. As such, it is part of the normal risk of operating a motor vehicle and considered foreseeably identifiable with its normal use.

Lansing car accident lawyer 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

Copyright © 2022 Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)