Mann v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

Mann v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 314 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: December 1, 1981
Docket: No. 55381
Judges: Danhof, Walsh, Riley
Citations: 314 N.W.2d 719111 Mich. App. 637

Cited by 19 3 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant.

According to deposition testimony, an unidentified individual threw a stone at plaintiffs vehicle from an overpass as plaintiff was driving along a Detroit expressway in December, 1978. The object apparently hit the automobile’s hood and windshield. Plaintiff allegedly turned his neck sharply in a reflex action and sustained neck and shoulder injuries. Plaintiff filed a suit to collect no-fault benefits for lost wages and medical bills.

Defendant moved for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(3). Defendant claimed that the injury did not arise out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle as required by the no-fault statute. The trial court granted defendant’s motion and denied plaintiffs motion for rehearing. We reverse.

Under the no-fault act, an individual is entitled to personal protection insurance benefits for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle *639 as a motor vehicle. MCL 500.3105(1); MSA 24.13105(1). The causal connection between the injury sustained and the ownership, maintenance, or use of the automobile must be more than incidental, fortuitous, or "but for”. The injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal ownership, maintenance, or use of the vehicle.

Kangas v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, 64 Mich App 1, 17 ; 235 NW2d 42 (1975). It is not sufficient that the motor vehicle is merely the site of the accident.

Shinabarger v Citizens Mutual Ins Co, 90 Mich App 307, 314 ; 282 NW2d 301 (1979).

Ordinarily, an assault on a person in an automobile is not a compensable injury under the no-fault act. This is because ordinarily the fact that the injured person is in a car has no connection with the assault itself. The individual’s presence in the automobile is merely fortuitous or incidental. See, e.g., Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exchange v Higginbotham, 95 Mich App 213 ; 290 NW2d 414 (1980), Hamka v Automobile Club of Michigan, 89 Mich App 644 ; 280 NW2d 512 (1979), and O’Key v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 89 Mich App 526 ; 280 NW2d 583 (1979).

This case, however, presents a different factual situation. In today’s society, unfortunately, there are unbalanced individuals who take perverse enjoyment out of dropping rocks and other objects on automobiles as they pass under overpasses on expressways. In recognition of this hazard, traffic engineers often design overpasses with protective fencing. This type of assault is directed at the automobile itself, not the driver. It happens only because the automobile is passing under the overpass at the appointed time. There is a direct causal relationship between the driving of the vehicle and the assault. In this case, if the plaintiff *640 had not been driving his automobile, he would not have been assaulted. Injuries sustained as a result of the assault, therefore, arise out of the operation and use of the motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.

Summary judgment should not have been granted.

Reversed, costs to appellant.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(rock dropped or thrown off overpass onto plaintiff’s vehicle injuring him as he was driving on Detroit expressway; benefits allowed)

Koole v. Mich. Mut. Ins., 337 N.W.2d 369 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)
(stone dropped on the plaintiff’s vehicle by unknown person from freeway overpass)

Morosini v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 568 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Bourne v. Farmers Insurance Exchange534 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. 1995)
Morosini v. Citizens Insurance Co. of America568 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)
Marzonie v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n495 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. 1992)
Mueller v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n512 N.W.2d 46 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993)
Denning v. Farm Bureau Insurance Group344 N.W.2d 368 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)
Meric v. Mid-Century Insurance Co.343 N.W.2d 688 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)

Most recent

Morosini v. Citizens Insurance Co. of America602 N.W.2d 828 (Mich. 1999)
Morosini v. Citizens Insurance Co. of America568 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)
Wills v. State Farm Insurance564 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)
Kennedy v. Auto Club544 N.W.2d 750 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)
Bourne v. Farmers Insurance Exchange534 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. 1995)
Bourne v. Farmers Insurance Exchange512 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Kangas v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 235 N.W.2d 42 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)	96
	Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch. v. Higginbotham, 290 N.W.2d 414 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)	74
	Shinabarger v. Citizens Mut. Ins., 282 N.W.2d 301 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)	63
	O'Key v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 280 N.W.2d 583 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)	32
	Hamka v. Auto. Club, 280 N.W.2d 512 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)	20

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list