|Case Forum:||Michigan Supreme Court|
|Keywords:||motor vehicle exception, governmental immunity, Government Tort Liability Act (GTLA), loss of consortium|
Ronald E. Baylor | Brad H. Sysol | Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, P.L.C. | 444 West Michigan Ave | Kalamazoo, MI 49007
In conclusion, the phrase “motor vehicle” as found in MCL 691.1405 does not include forklifts. Mull was wrongly decided, both in terms of determining the Legislature’s intent as to the definition of “motor vehicle” in the Motor Vehicle Code and by imposing owner liability on industrial and construction equipment not used on public roads. Adoption by the Legislature of 1995 PA 140 in response to Mull v Equitable Life Assurance, 444 Mich 508; 510 NW2d 184 (1994) was curative legislation, to be given retroactive effect in order to
This case calls into question whether a forklift is a “motor vehicle” within the ambit of the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1405. We hold that it is not, and, therefore, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.
|MSC requested LDF amicus brief?||No|
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Michael Stanton was injured when he