STANTON v. CITY OF BATTLE CREEK, 465 Mich. 855 (2001)

632 N.W.2d 139

No. 115909 (54).Supreme Court of Michigan.
July 26, 2001.

COA: 205614, Calhoun CC: 96-002959-NP

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of April 25, 2000, is considered, and it is GRANTED. On reconsideration, we VACATE our order dated April 25, 2000, GRANT leave to appeal, and DIRECT the parties to brief the following issues: (1) whether a forklift is a “motor vehicle” as that term is used in MCL 691.1405; (2) whether, in light of 1995 PA 140, Mull v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 444 Mich. 508 (1994), affects the answer to the previous question; (3) whether, if the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, language in Mull not affected by 1995 PA 140 should be disavowed; (4) whether a decision by this Court to disavow such parts o Mull would affect the outcome in this case; and (5) whether the “vehicle exception” in MCL 691.1405 creates a cause of action against governmental agencies, or merely defines an exception to the immunity conferred by MCL 691.1407(1).