Harder v. Harder, Docket No. 104953

• Decision Date: 05 June 1989
• Docket Number: Docket No. 104953
• Citation: 440 N.W.2d 53,176 Mich.App. 589
• Parties: Angel HARDER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Elaine Harder, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roy HARDER, Defendant, and Walter Opanasenko, Defendant-Appellee. 176 Mich.App. 589, 440 N.W.2d 53
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 53

440 N.W.2d 53

Angel HARDER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Elaine Harder, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roy HARDER, Defendant and Walter Opanasenko, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 104953.

176 Mich.App. 589, 440 N.W.2d 53

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 8, 1988.

Decided April 18, 1989.

Released for Publication June 5, 1989.

[176 MICHAPP 589] John P. S. Miller, Roscommon, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cubitt, Cubitt & Trowhill by H. Dale Cubitt, Bad Axe, for Walter Opanasenko.

[176 MICHAPP 590] Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and WEAVER and QUINNELL, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The issue is whether a tractor is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the owner's liability statute, M.C.L. Sec. 257.401; M.S.A. Sec. 9.2101.

Defendant Roy Harder backed over and fatally injured his three-year-old daughter while operating a tractor owned by defendant Walter Opanasenko. Roy Harder had been in the process of removing leaves from the driveway of his residence. Plaintiff Angel Harder, mother of the deceased and wife of Roy Harder, brought suit against both defendants, alleging that Roy Harder was negligent in his operation of the tractor and that Opanasenko was liable as the owner of the tractor. Opanasenko's liability is asserted under M.C.L. Sec. 257.401; M.S.A. Sec. 9.2101, the owner's liability statute, which reads in pertinent part:

"The owner of a motor vehicle shall be liable for any injury occasioned by the negligent operation of such motor vehicle whether such negligence consists of a violation of the provisions of the statutes of the state or in the failure to observe such ordinary care in such operation as the rules of the common law requires." [Emphasis added.]

That provision is part of the civil liability act, M.C.L. Sec. 257.401 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 9.2101 et seq., which is Chapter IV of the Michigan Vehicle Code, M.C.L. Sec. 257.1 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 9.1801 et seq.

The tractor at issue was an Oliver 770, which is a farm tractor. The trial court determined that the tractor was not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the act. Accordingly, the court ruled the statute inapplicable and granted summary disposition[176 MICHAPP 591] in favor of Opanasenko pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), from which plaintiff appeals as of right. We reverse the trial court.

In determining whether a tractor is a motor vehicle under the terms of the statute, the most important rule of statutory interpretation is that the reviewing court discover and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. The next rule is to derive the legislative intentions from the actual language used in the statute. If the language used is clear and the meaning of the words chosen is unambiguous, a common-sense reading of the provision will suffice, and no interpretation is necessary. In re Certified Questions, 416 Mich. 558, 567, 331 N.W.2d 456 (1982); Pioneer State Mutual Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 417 Mich. 590, 595, 339 N.W.2d 470 (1983). Where, as here, a statute supplies its own glossary, courts may not import any other interpretation, but must apply the meaning of the terms as expressly defined. Noggles v. Battle Creek Wrecking, Inc., 153 Mich.App. 363, 367, 395 N.W.2d 322 (1986). See, e.g., Bialochowski v. Cross Concrete Pumping Co., 428 Mich. 219, 226, 407 N.W.2d 355 (1987).

The Vehicle Code defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle which is self-propelled, M.C.L. Sec. 257.33; M.S.A. Sec. 9.1833, in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, M.C.L. Sec. 257.79; M.S.A. Sec. 9.1879. The code further defines "farm tractor" as meaning "every motor vehicle designed and used primarily as a farm implement ...," M.C.L. Sec. 257.16; M.S.A. Sec. 9.1816 (emphasis added). We believe the language of Secs. 33, 79, and 16 is clear and unambiguous and that a tractor, including the type in question here, meets the definition of a motor vehicle under the owner's liability statute. Moreover, since a farm tractor of this type may lawfully be used on the [176 MICHAPP 592] highway, and may be designed in part for that use, it falls within the ambit of the owner's liability act. Cf. Calladine v. Hyster Co., 155 Mich.App. 175, 399 N.W.2d 404 (1986), lv. den. 426 Mich. 882 (1986), and Jones v. Cloverdale Equipment Co., 165 Mich.App. 511, 419 N.W.2d 11 (1987). Our determination is consistent with our Supreme Court's conclusion in Pioneer Ins., supra, 417 Mich. p. 596, 339 N.W.2d 470, that a farm tractor is a motor vehicle as defined under the no-fault act. See also State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Wyant, 154 Mich.App. 745, 748, 398 N.W.2d 517 (1986).

We observe that 1949 P.A. 300, the act currently in effect, amended the previous definition of "motor vehicle." Prior to the enactment of 1949 P.A. 300, the term motor vehicle included "every vehicle which is self-propelled, except any such vehicle as may be included within the term 'farm tractor' as herein defined." (Emphasis added.) 1943 P.A. 99, Sec. 1(b). In construing an amendment to a statute, it is presumed that a change in phraseology reflects a legislative intent to change the meaning of ...