Personal injury action arising from a snowmobile accident; Governmental immunity; The Governmental Tort Liability Act (MCL 691.1401 et seq.); The “motor vehicle” exception; MCL 691.1405; Stanton v. Battle Creek; Overall v. Howard; Wesche v. Mecosta Cnty. Rd. Comm’n; Regan v. Washtenaw Cnty. Rd. Comm’rs (On Remand); Yoches v. Dearborn; Operation of snowmobiles on or alongside roadways; MCL 324.82119(1)(a), (b), (c), (h), & (f); “Roadway”; MCL 257.55; “Vehicle”; MCL 257.79

The court held that the snowmobiles owned by defendant-DNR and operated by defendants-conservation officers qualified as motor vehicles under MCL 691.1405 because they “were motor-driven conveyances that could be expected to be operated, under certain circumstances, on or alongside a roadway[.]” Thus, it affirmed the denial of summary disposition based on governmental immunity. Plaintiffs were injured while driving a snowmobile on Pinney Bridge Road after they allegedly encountered the officers “driving DNR-owned snowmobiles on the same road in the wrong direction.” The court reviewed cases holding that forklifts and golf carts do not meet the definition of a motor vehicle, and cases holding that “such conveyances as a Gradall hydraulic excavator, . . . a ‘broom tractor' and a ‘tractor mower’ performing roadside maintenance, . . . and a tractor pulling a wagon with passengers for hayrides” qualify as motor vehicles under MCL 691.1405. Thus, it considered whether snowmobiles are more like an excavator or a tractor, or more like a golf cart or forklift. It found that “snowmobiles are physically more analogous to automobiles than not.” While defendants asserted that “snowmobiles neither typically, nor usually legally, travel on public roadways as part of normal operations[,]” the court noted that under Overall, “the question is whether the conveyance is intended to operate on or alongside the roadway.” Defendants also cited MCL 324.82119(1) (prohibiting the use of snowmobiles on public highways), but it has several exceptions, including subsection (1)(f), which specifically permits them “to be operated on the shoulders of roads under some circumstances[.]” Thus, they are clearly “capable of more than incidental operation on roadways.” As to defendants’ contention that the accident occurred on a “Designated Snowmobile Trail,” the court found that this was not dispositive, and that the record did not establish that such a trail “is necessarily not a highway.” Considering the Vehicle Code definitions of roadway and vehicle, it concluded that “the physical, design, and expected use characteristics of snowmobiles reveal them to be ‘similar motor-driven conveyances’ irrespective of whether Pinney Bridge Road was a public roadway.”