Michigan Appeals Court Rules for Driver in Car Wash Fall

The Michigan appeals court is breaking new legal ground – at a self-serve car wash.

In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled that a woman who fell while washing her car can seek payment for her injuries from her car insurer. The court ruled that maintenance of Tamara Woodring’s car had a “direct casual influence” on her fall and injuries.

According to facts presented within the opinion, Woodring’s employer provided her with a vehicle that was insured by Phoenix Insurance Company. Woodring went to a self-serve spray car wash in early February, parked the vehicle but left it running, and began washing it. As she worked her way around to the rear of the vehicle, she slipped and fell, sustaining serious injuries.

Бизнес партнерство и бизнес-идеи

Woodring believed she slipped due to ice. The court noted that it is undisputed that she was not entering, occupying, exiting, or touching the vehicle at the time of her fall, although she was using the car wash’s sprayer wand.

The trial court found in favor of the insurer and granted its motion for summary disposition, based in “part on the fact that precedent from our Supreme Court, which was confusing, had not clearly overruled precedent from this Court, which was therefore still good law.”

Woodring appealed and the appeals court cited prior cases that found that “a vehicle is not necessarily ‘parked’ just because it is stopped, halted, standing, or otherwise not presently in motion. Indeed, our Supreme Court has indicated that a lack of vehicular movement merely triggers a requirement to consider whether the vehicle is therefore ‘parked.’”

The appeals court continued, “Thus, we now turn to our Supreme Court’s order to consider “whether the causal connection between the plaintiff’s injuries and the maintenance of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle is more than incidental, fortuitous, or ‘but for.’””

Judge Amy Ronayne Krause said it’s not a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Judge Jane Markey agreed. Their opinion sets a legal precedent.

Judge Michael Riordan disagreed, indicating the connection between Woodring’s injuries and her car was incidental.

Read the opinion in Tamara Woodring v. Phoenix Insurance Company, No. 324128, Muskegon Circuit Court, LC o. 14-049544-NI

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Was this article valuable?

Yes
No

Thank you! Please tell us what we can do to improve this article.

Submit
No Thanks

Thank you! % of people found this article valuable. Please tell us what you liked about it.

Submit
No Thanks

Here are more articles you may enjoy.

Oklahoma Health Official Says State Is Ready for Medical Marijuana

Swiss Re No Longer Offers Re/Insurance to Firms with More Than 30% Coal Exposure

Employees Find Vacation Benefits Short-Lived, Don’t Offset Stressful Work Culture

Amazon to Buy Online Pharmacy Startup PillPack as Entry Into Health Care

Source