 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Elder v. Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Co.6/17/2003
not be the proximate cause of the injury; however; there must be more than an incidental or fortuitous connection between the injury and the use of the vehicle. Keller v Citizens Ins Co, 199 Mich App 714, 715; 502 NW2d 329 (1993). The injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the vehicle. Kangas v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, 64 Mich App 1, 17; 235 NW2d 42 (1975). For a motor vehicle to be involved in an accident, it must actively contribute to the accident. Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 448 Mich 22, 39; 528 NW2d 681 (1995).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting Pioneer's motion for summary disposition. We disagree and affirm the trial court's decision. The evidence as accepted by the trial court for purposes of deciding the motions showed that traffic on US-31 slowed for an unknown reason. Decedent turned his head in anticipation of making a lane change. When he returned his attention to the traffic in front of him he noticed that it had slowed, and attempted to avoid striking the vehicle immediately in front of him by laying the motorcycle on the pavement.
The trial court correctly found that no evidence created a question of fact as to whether decedent's injuries arose out of the use of the vehicle as a motor vehicle. The vehicle was simply the last in a line of vehicles that had stopped or slowed nearly to a stop. It did not engage in maneuvers that prevented decedent from stopping, nor is there any evidence that another vehicle in the line did so. Cf. Greater Flint HMO v Allstate Ins Co, 172 Mich App 783, 788; 432 NW2d 439 (1988); Bromley v Citizens Ins Co, 113 Mich App 131, 135; 317 NW2d 318 (1982). The vehicle was merely present in front of decedent and was not "involved" in the accident. See Utley v Michigan Mun Risk Mgmt Auth, 454 Mich 879; 562 NW2d 199 (1997), rev'g Utley v Michigan Mun Risk Mgmt Auth, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 26, 1996 (Docket No. 173391). The connection between decedent's injuries and the use of the vehicle in front of him was merely fortuitous. Keller, supra; Kangas, supra.
Plaintiff's assertion that an analysis of whether the vehicle was involved in the accident was unnecessary in this case because multiple vehicles were not involved, and that only the question of whether the accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle was relevant, is without merit. The involvement of a motor vehicle in an accident in which a motorcyclist sustains injuries is a prerequisite to the recovery of benefits by the motorcyclist under MCL 500.3114(5)(c). The statute does not require that multiple vehicles be involved in the accident. Here, the vehicle engaged in no activity that actively contributed to the accident. Rather, the vehicle's passive presence caused decedent to lay the motorcycle on the pavement. The trial court correctly found that the evidence did not create a question of fact as to whether the vehicle actively contributed to the accident. Turner, supra. Summary disposition was proper.
Affirmed.
David H. Sawyer
Patrick M. Meter
Bill Schuette
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|