In a 2-1 published opinion, Audrey West and Randy West v. Department of Natural Resources, Andrea Albert, and Steve Butzin, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether snowmobiles operated and owned by the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) qualify as “motor vehicles” for purposes of the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity under MCL 691.1405.
In West, the plaintiffs, a father and daughter, were driving a snowmobile on Pinney Bridge Road in Chestonia Township, Michigan, when they encountered the defendant DNR employees. At the time of the accident the DNR employees were within the scope of their employment and operating DNR owned snowmobiles, traveling in the wrong direction on the same snowmobile trail as plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim that they were forced to swerve off the trail, causing their snowmobile to crash. The daughter was thrown into a river and the father was pinned underneath the snowmobile.
Generally, governmental agencies are immune from tort liability for actions taken in furtherance of governmental functions; however, plaintiffs initiated the instant action arguing that the DNR was liable for its employees’ negligence under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity. Specifically, MCL 691.1405 provides that governmental agencies are liable for bodily injuries resulting from the negligent operation of a government owned motor vehicle by an officer, agent or employee of the governmental agency. Defendant DNR filed a motion for summary disposition on the basis that snowmobiles do not fall under the definition of “motor vehicles” and it therefore enjoys governmental immunity. The trial court denied defendant’s motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, finding the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity under MCL 691.1405 applied.
In Stanton v Battle Creek, 466 Mich 611; 647 NW2d 508 (2002) the Michigan Supreme Court held that a “motor vehicle” for purposes of the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity is an automobile, truck, bus or similar motor-driven conveyance. Under the “similar motor-driven conveyance” analysis courts generally consider the at-issue vehicle’s physical characteristics, design, intended use and actual use. In Overall v Howard, 480 Mich 896; 738 NW2d 760 (2007), the Michigan Supreme Court expanded the analysis to include consideration of whether the conveyances at issue are designed for operation on or along the roadway.
Applying the Stanton and Overall analyses, courts have found that cars, truck, buses, and tractors are motor vehicles under MCL 691.1405. On the other hand forklifts and golf carts are not considered motor vehicles. In West, the Court of Appeals found that snowmobiles are more analogous to automobiles than not because they are physically capable of operating on roads and traveling extended distances. The Court further found that under MCL 324.82119(1)(a) and (b), snowmobiles are permitted to travel within highway right-of-ways unless explicitly prohibited by the DNR or the Michigan Department of Transportation. Accordingly, it is expected that snowmobiles will be operated alongside roadways.
The Court of Appeals also determined that at the time of the accident the snowmobiles were being used for a combination of transportation and recreational purposes, and defendants did not establish that the location of the subject accident was not a roadway. In the end the Court found that the physical, design, and expected use characteristics of snowmobiles satisfy the “similar motor-driven conveyance” analysis in this case. Therefore, the snowmobiles qualify as a motor vehicle under MCL 691.1405 and plaintiffs will be able to pursue their claims against DNR.
Sarah Nadeau, Editor of The Garan Report Publication, is a Shareholder in our Detroit Office. Sarah can be reached at 313.446.1530 or snadeau@garanlucow.com