Morosini v. CITIZENS INS. CO. OF AMERICA

Michigan Court of Appeals

Morosini v. CITIZENS INS. CO. OF AMERICA

591 N.W.2d 63, 232 Mich. App. 259

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1999

DocketDocket 186760

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 591 N.W.2d 63 (Morosini v. CITIZENS INS. CO. OF AMERICA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morosini v. CITIZENS INS. CO. OF AMERICA, 591 N.W.2d 63, 232 Mich. App. 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of McKenzie v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 458 Mich 214; 580 NW2d 424 (1998). 458 Mich 866 (1998). In McKenzie, the Court held that whether an injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle under MCL 500.3105(1); MSA 24.13105(1) turns on whether the injury is closely related to the transportational function of motor vehicles. Because the plaintiff in McKenzie was using a camper/trailer attached to his pickup truck as a sleeping accommodation at the time of his injury, the Court concluded that the use was too far removed from the transportational function to constitute use of the camper/trailer as a motor vehicle at the time of the injury.

*261 The facts of the present case axe succinctly set forth in Morosini v Citizens Ins Co of America, 224 Mich App 70; 568 NW2d 346 (1997). Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck from the rear by another motorist. The plaintiff got out of his vehicle and was in the process of examining the damage to his vehicle when he was assaulted by the driver of the other vehicle. We held that while assaults are not ordinarily part of the “normal risk” of driving, injuries arising from assaults are compensable under the no-fault act only when the assault arises out of a “normal activity associated with the use of a vehicle as a motor vehicle.” Thus, we concluded that there was a sufficient causal nexus between the injuries sustained by plaintiff in the assault and the use of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle because plaintiff’s injuries were sustained in the course of fulfilling his statutory obligations as an operator of a motor vehicle involved in an accident to inspect for damage and exchange information with any other driver involved in the accident. MCL 257.618, 257.619; MSA 9.2318, 9.2319. This holding is consistent with the approach that focuses on transportational function because the fulfillment of statutory obligations with regard to motor vehicle accidents is closely related to the transportational function of motor vehicles.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of McKenzie v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 458 Mich 214; 580 NW2d 424 (1998). 458 Mich 866 (1998). In McKenzie, the Court held that whether an injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle under MCL 500.3105(1); MSA 24.13105(1) turns on whether the injury is closely related to the transportational function of motor vehicles. Because the plaintiff in McKenzie was using a camper/trailer attached to his pickup truck as a sleeping accommodation at the time of his injury, the Court concluded that the use was too far removed from the transportational function to constitute use of the camper/trailer as a motor vehicle at the time of the injury.

*261 The facts of the present case axe succinctly set forth in Morosini v Citizens Ins Co of America, 224 Mich App 70; 568 NW2d 346 (1997). Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck from the rear by another motorist. The plaintiff got out of his vehicle and was in the process of examining the damage to his vehicle when he was assaulted by the driver of the other vehicle. We held that while assaults are not ordinarily part of the “normal risk” of driving, injuries arising from assaults are compensable under the no-fault act only when the assault arises out of a “normal activity associated with the use of a vehicle as a motor vehicle.” Thus, we concluded that there was a sufficient causal nexus between the injuries sustained by plaintiff in the assault and the use of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle because plaintiff’s injuries were sustained in the course of fulfilling his statutory obligations as an operator of a motor vehicle involved in an accident to inspect for damage and exchange information with any other driver involved in the accident. MCL 257.618, 257.619; MSA 9.2318, 9.2319. This holding is consistent with the approach that focuses on transportational function because the fulfillment of statutory obligations with regard to motor vehicle accidents is closely related to the transportational function of motor vehicles.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 N.W.2d 63, 232 Mich. App. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morosini-v-citizens-ins-co-of-america-michctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack