Case Name: RAJHEL v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1985-07-08
Citations: 145 Mich. App. 593
Docket Number: Docket No. 74121
Parties: RAJHEL v AUTOMOBILE CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
Judges: Before: Danhof, C.J., and T. M. Burns and R. H. Bell, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 145
Pages: 593–598

Head Matter:
RAJHEL v AUTOMOBILE CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
Docket No. 74121.
Submitted December 5, 1984, at Detroit.
Decided July 8, 1985.
Plaintiff, Veronica Rajhel, was walking from her car to a tow truck which had been called to assist her when she fell on a patch of ice and injured herself. She brought an action in the Oakland Circuit Court seeking to recover no-fault benefits from her insurer, Automobile Club Insurance Association. The Court, John N. O’Brien, J, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant appealed by leave granted. Held:
There must be a causal connection between the injury suffered and the ownership, maintenance, or use of an automobile to sustain a claim under the terms of an automobile insurance policy which provides coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an automobile. A slip-and-fall injury is not compensable under the no-fault act merely because the victim was walking from an automobile toward a tow truck which had been called because the victim’s vehicle had failed to start.
Reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment.
T. M. Burns, J., dissented. He would hold that there is a sufficient causal connection between an injury and the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle to sustain recovery under the no-fault act where the victim fell on ice while walking from her car to a tow truck which had been called because the victim’s car would not start. He would affirm.
Opinion of the Court
1. Insurance — No-Fault Insurance — "Ownership, Maintenance, Use” — Sup and Fall.
There must be a causal connection between the injury suffered and the ownership, maintenance, or use of an automobile to _sustain a claim under the terms of an automobile insurance policy which provides coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an automobile; a slip-and-fall injury is not compensable under the no-fault act merely because the victim was walking from an automobile toward a tow truck which had been called because the victim’s vehicle had failed to start.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] Am Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance §§ 340 et seq.
Validity and construction of "no-fault” automobile insurance plans. 42 ALR3d 229.
Dissent bv T. M. Burns, J.
2. Insurance — No-Fault Insurance — "Ownership, Maintenance, Use” — Slip and Fall.
There is a sufficient causal connection between an injury and the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle to sustain recovery under the no-fault act where the victim fell on ice while walking from her car to a tow truck which had been called because the victim’s car would not start.
Frederick D. Jasmer, P.C. (by Frederick D. Jasmer), for plaintiff.
Dickinson, Mourad, Brandt, Hanlon & Becker (by A. Randolph Judd), and Gromek, Bendure & Thomas (by James G. Gross), of counsel, for defendant.
Before: Danhof, C.J., and T. M. Burns and R. H. Bell, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff was unable to start her car and called a tow truck. When the tow truck arrived, she left her car and walked towards it. As plaintiff approached the tow truck, she slipped on a patch of ice and injured herself. Plaintiff then brought this suit seeking recovery of no-fault benefits from her insurer. The trial court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and this Court granted leave to appeal.
When denying defendant's motion, the lower court found that plaintiff was an occupant of the motor vehicle and that there was a causal connec tion between her injury and the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of the motor vehicle. We reverse on the basis that, irrespective of the question of whether plaintiff was "occupying" or "maintaining" a motor vehicle, there has simply been no causal connection established between that activity and the injury sustained. The no-fault act was not designed to compensate all injuries occurring in or around a motor vehicle. Denning v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 130 Mich App 777, 782; 344 NW2d 368 (1983), lv den 419 Mich 877 (1984). The injury sustained in the instant case was unrelated to plaintiffs maintenance, etc., of a motor vehicle, since the injury could "just as well have occurred elsewhere". 130 Mich App 786, i.e., its connection to a motor vehicle was merely fortuitous.
This Court has previously recognized that the typical slip-and-fall injury occasioned by icy conditions where the no-fault claimant is simply going to or from a motor vehicle is "without causal connection with the ownership, maintenance, and use of [a motor vehicle]". Block v Citizens Ins Co of America, 111 Mich App 106, 109; 314 NW2d 536 (1981). See also, King v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, 118 Mich App 648, 651; 325 NW2d 528 (1982), lv den 418 Mich 881 (1983); Griffin v Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co, 128 Mich App 624, 631; 341 NW2d 163 (1983). Were we to permit coverage here, we would be accepting an extremely attenuated causal connection. Because the facts are not in dispute, we hold that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of defendant.
Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.