Short answer: A construction truck driver died on Friday, Oct. 2, in Birmingham after he was trapped under the truck he was driving while checking a malfunctioning lift axle, according to Birmingham police as reported by FOX 2 Detroit. If he was working for an employer, Michigan's workers' compensation act is generally the only remedy against that employer, but his estate can still bring a wrongful death claim against a third party, such as a company that made, installed or repaired the lift axle system, if a defect or negligent work led to the death. MIOSHA, Michigan's workplace safety agency, now lists the death in its 2026 fatality information; its initial-report description says the driver had an issue with the truck shifting gears, "reported the issue to the employer" and was later found beneath the truck's lift axle. Why the system moved, who owned and maintained the truck, and who employed him have not been reported, and those facts decide which claims exist.
What happened
Birmingham police received a call on Oct. 2 reporting that a man was pinned under a construction truck in the 800 block of Redding, according to FOX 2 Detroit, which credited the Birmingham Police Department for its details. Police found a 57-year-old man dead beneath the truck. Investigators said the driver had mechanical difficulties with one of the truck's lift axles, pulled onto the side of the road to check on the malfunction, and was trapped under the truck when the system turned back on. The Detroit News also reported the death. According to WDIV, police responded to Redding Road near Woodward Avenue and Quarton Road at around 12 p.m. after a resident reported that a man was pinned under a construction truck and unresponsive.
What we know so far
- A man died after being pinned under a construction truck in Birmingham on Friday, Oct. 2 (FOX 2 Detroit; The Detroit News).
- Police found the 57-year-old man dead beneath the truck in the 800 block of Redding, according to FOX 2 Detroit, which credited the Birmingham Police Department.
- He was the truck's driver. Investigators said he had mechanical difficulties with one of its lift axles and pulled off onto the side of Redding to check on the malfunction (FOX 2 Detroit); police said he had pulled over to address a mechanical issue (The Detroit News).
- Officials said he was trapped under the truck when the system turned back on (FOX 2 Detroit).
- Police responded at around 12 p.m. after a resident reported that a man was pinned under a construction truck and unresponsive on Redding Road near Woodward Avenue and Quarton Road, according to WDIV, which also reported that he became trapped when the lift axle system engaged.
- MIOSHA's 2026 fatality information lists an Oct. 2 death in Birmingham of a 57-year-old driver, type of incident "caught in or between." Its description says the driver "was driving an empty dump truck when they experienced an issue with the truck shifting gears," pulled the truck over onto a residential street, "reported the issue to the employer," and "was later found by a passerby beneath the truck's lift axle" (MIOSHA fatality information). MIOSHA says its descriptions reflect information provided at the initial report and "are not the result of the official MIOSHA investigation."
- MIOSHA's initial-report description refers to an issue with the truck shifting gears; police, as reported by FOX 2 Detroit, described mechanical difficulties with one of the truck's lift axles. Neither account says what made the truck or its lift axle system move.
- The reports and the MIOSHA entry reviewed through October 7 do not identify the truck's owner, the driver's employer, or any company connected to the truck.
What has not been established
- Why the lift axle system turned back on. No cause has been reported.
- Who owned the truck and who employed the driver. MIOSHA's initial-report description says he reported the issue "to the employer," but it does not name the employer, and no report says whether he was its employee, an owner-operator or worked under some other arrangement.
- The make of the truck, who manufactured or installed its lift axle system, and the truck's inspection and maintenance history.
- Whether MIOSHA has opened an inspection, and what any investigation found. Its fatality list entry reflects the initial report, not an investigation result.
- Whether the truck or any of its parts was subject to a safety recall.
Can a family sue after a worker is killed on the job in Michigan?
A family has lost someone, and the rules that follow a death at work are not intuitive. If the driver was working for an employer, Michigan's workers' compensation act limits who can be sued. Under MCL 418.131(1), workers' compensation is "the employee's exclusive remedy against the employer for a personal injury or occupational disease." The only exception is an intentional tort, which the statute defines narrowly: the employer must have "specifically intended an injury," or had "actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge." A judge decides whether the facts meet that standard, and negligence alone, however serious, does not.
What workers' compensation pays after a death
For dependents who were wholly dependent on the worker's earnings, the employer or its insurer pays a weekly benefit of 80% of the worker's after-tax average weekly wage, subject to the act's maximum and minimum rates, for 500 weeks from the date of death (MCL 418.321). Funeral and burial costs are paid up to $6,000 or the actual cost, whichever is less (MCL 418.345). The claim must be made within 2 years after the death (MCL 418.381).
If he was not an employee
The exclusive-remedy rule protects employers, and the act itself decides who counts as an employee. Under MCL 418.161(1)(n), a person performing service in the course of an employer's trade, business, profession or occupation is an employee "if the person in relation to this service does not maintain a separate business, does not hold himself or herself out to and render service to the public, and is not an employer subject to this act." A driver who owned and operated his own truck as a separate business serving the public may fall outside the act. If the act does not cover him, its exclusive-remedy limit does not apply to his estate's claims, and ordinary negligence and product liability rules decide which claims exist.
Can the family bring a claim against anyone other than the employer?
Michigan does not make a family choose between workers' compensation and a lawsuit against an outside company. MCL 418.827(1) says accepting compensation "shall not act as an election of remedies," and the dependents or personal representative "may also proceed to enforce the liability of the third party." Three details matter here:
- The employer and coworkers are not third parties. The section reaches liability "in some person other than a natural person in the same employ or the employer."
- There is a one-year window. If the family or estate does not sue within 1 year after the injury, the employer or its insurer may bring the claim itself, and whoever files must first give 30 days' notice by certified mail to the state agency, the family, the employer and the insurer.
- The insurer is repaid first. Under MCL 418.827(5), a recovery "after deducting expenses of recovery" first reimburses the employer or insurer for benefits paid or payable to date. The balance goes to the dependents or the estate and counts as an advance on future compensation.
The personal representative of the estate would bring the claim under Michigan's wrongful death act, MCL 600.2922, which allows medical, funeral and burial expenses, conscious pain and suffering, loss of financial support, and loss of the society and companionship of the person who died. Damages for the lost earning capacity of the person who died are not available (Daher v Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, 2024).
Product claims against equipment makers
If the investigation points to the lift axle system or its controls, a claim against its maker falls under Michigan's product liability statute. The estate would have to show that the product was not reasonably safe when it left the manufacturer's or seller's control and that a "practical and technically feasible alternative production practice" was available (MCL 600.2946). Compliance with applicable federal or state safety standards gives the maker a rebuttable presumption that it is not liable. Noneconomic damages are capped under MCL 600.2946a: the 2026 cap published by the Michigan Department of Treasury is $1,065,000 when a defect causes a death, and the cap does not apply if the jury finds the death resulted from the defendant's gross negligence, or if the court finds the maker knew the product was defective and substantially likely to cause the injury and "willfully disregarded that knowledge" (MCL 600.2949a).
Two other defenses in the product statute could matter here. A maker or seller is not liable for harm caused by an alteration or a misuse of the product unless the alteration or misuse was reasonably foreseeable (MCL 600.2947), so who installed, adjusted or modified the lift axle system, and how it was being used, will matter. And unless a state or federal statute or regulation requires a warning, a maker or seller is not liable for failing to provide an adequate warning "if the product is provided for use by a sophisticated user," which the statute defines as a person or entity that, by virtue of training, experience, a profession or legal obligations, is or is generally expected to be knowledgeable about a product's properties, including a potential hazard (MCL 600.2945). If the truck or its lift axle system was supplied to a commercial owner whose business makes it knowledgeable about that equipment, a maker could argue that defense applies, which would leave any claim focused on the design or manufacture of the system rather than its warnings.
Installers, repair shops and owners
A company that installed, modified, inspected or repaired the lift axle system, or a separate owner of the truck that controlled its maintenance and was not his employer, would be judged under ordinary negligence rules: did it use reasonable care, and did a failure in its work lead to the death? Fault is allocated among everyone who contributed, including nonparties (MCL 600.2957). Any share of fault assigned to the person who died reduces damages, and noneconomic damages are barred only if his share is greater than everyone else's combined (MCL 600.2959).
Does no-fault insurance apply when a parked truck's equipment injures its driver?
No-fault benefits cover injuries arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, but parked vehicles have their own rule. Under MCL 500.3106(1), an injury involving a parked vehicle qualifies only if the vehicle was parked in a way that caused an unreasonable risk of the injury, the injury was "a direct result of physical contact with equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle, while the equipment was being operated or used," or the person was occupying, entering or getting out of the vehicle. The site's MCL 500.3106 explainer covers each exception.
For workers, subsection (2) usually controls: an injury does not arise out of the use of a parked vehicle when workers' compensation benefits are available to an employee hurt on the job while "loading, unloading, or doing mechanical work on a vehicle," unless the injury arose from the use or operation of another vehicle. So if the driver was a covered employee and checking the axle counts as mechanical work, no-fault personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits would generally not be available, and workers' compensation would be the benefit system. Whether a roadside check is "mechanical work," and whether a lift axle is "equipment permanently mounted on the vehicle," are questions the reported facts do not answer. Without workers' compensation, subsection (1) decides any no-fault claim, which must be noticed in writing or filed within 1 year after the accident (MCL 500.3145).
Evidence that matters and how fast it can disappear
The truck is the central piece of evidence. Its lift axle, the controls that raise and lower it, and any electronic data can show what happened only if they are examined before the truck is repaired, returned to service or scrapped. A Michigan court may sanction a party that failed to preserve evidence even before a lawsuit is filed, and a jury may, but need not, infer that missing evidence was unfavorable (Brenner v Kolk). Michigan does not recognize a separate lawsuit against a third party for losing evidence needed in a case against someone else (Teel v Meredith), so written preservation requests matter early. Whether the truck was subject to an open safety recall can be checked by its 17-character vehicle identification number on NHTSA's recall search, which also covers equipment recalls.
If the truck is a commercial motor vehicle run by a carrier subject to the federal motor carrier safety rules, two record sets have short minimum retention periods:
| Record | Minimum retention | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Driver vehicle inspection reports and repair certifications | 3 months | 49 CFR 396.11(a)(4) |
| Inspection, repair and maintenance records | 1 year, and 6 months after the vehicle leaves the carrier's control | 49 CFR 396.3(c) |
Engine control module data, dashcam video and nearby home or business cameras have no fixed retention period and may be overwritten. Michigan employers must report a work-related death to MIOSHA within 8 hours (MIOSHA reporting requirements); MIOSHA has listed this death in its 2026 fatality information, and if it inspects, its file becomes another record of what happened.
Who could be legally responsible
Nothing reported so far establishes that anyone did anything wrong. The possibilities, each with the condition that would make it so:
- The driver's employer, through workers' compensation benefits, and through a lawsuit only if a court found the intentional-tort standard in MCL 418.131 met.
- The maker of the truck, the lift axle or its controls, if the system was not reasonably safe when it left the maker's control, or lacked an adequate warning, and that led to the death.
- A company that installed, modified, inspected or repaired the lift axle system, if it failed to use reasonable care and that failure led to the death.
- A separate owner or lessor of the truck that was not his employer, if it was responsible for maintenance and negligent maintenance led to the death.
Michigan deadlines that apply
| Claim | Deadline | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Workers' compensation death benefits | Claim within 2 years after the death | MCL 418.381 |
| Third-party suit (the family or estate has the first year; after that, the employer or insurer may file) | 1 year after the injury; 30 days' certified-mail notice before any filing | MCL 418.827 |
| Wrongful death claim (negligence or product liability) | 3 years after the death; an estate may also file within 2 years after letters of authority issue, but no later than 3 years after the 3-year period ends | MCL 600.5805, MCL 600.5852 |
| No-fault PIP benefits, if the parked-vehicle rules allow them | Written notice or suit within 1 year after the accident | MCL 500.3145 |
| Employer's fatality report to MIOSHA | 8 hours | MIOSHA |
The Michigan injury deadline calculator applies these rules to specific dates.
Questions people are asking
Can a family sue the employer after a fatal work accident in Michigan? Generally no. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against the employer under MCL 418.131, except for an intentional tort, which requires that the employer specifically intended an injury or knew one was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge.
Does accepting workers' compensation give up the right to sue anyone else? No. Under MCL 418.827, accepting benefits is not an election of remedies, so the estate can pursue a third party, such as an equipment maker or repair company, whose legal liability led to the death. The employer or its insurer is repaid first from any recovery.
Does no-fault insurance pay when a worker is hurt by a parked work truck? Usually not when workers' compensation is available and the worker was loading, unloading or doing mechanical work on the vehicle, because MCL 500.3106(2) takes those injuries out of no-fault. Otherwise, the parked-vehicle exceptions in MCL 500.3106(1) decide the question.
Does the age of the truck matter for a product claim? Michigan has no statute of repose for ordinary products, so age alone does not bar a claim. But if the product had been in use for 10 years or more, the plaintiff must prove the case without the benefit of any presumption (MCL 600.5805), and the usual filing deadline is 3 years.
Does workers' compensation pay death benefits in Michigan? Yes, to dependents. The employer or its insurer pays dependents who were wholly dependent on the worker's earnings 80% of the worker's after-tax average weekly wage, within the act's maximum and minimum rates, for 500 weeks, and pays funeral and burial costs up to $6,000 or the actual cost, whichever is less (MCL 418.321, MCL 418.345). The claim must be made within 2 years after the death (MCL 418.381).
Is an owner-operator truck driver covered by workers' compensation in Michigan? It depends on how he worked. The act treats a person performing service in an employer's business as an employee if he does not maintain a separate business, does not hold himself out to and render service to the public, and is not an employer subject to the act (MCL 418.161(1)(n)). An owner-operator who runs his own trucking business may fall outside the act, and then the exclusive-remedy limit does not apply.
If you are dealing with a situation like this
When equipment injures or kills a worker, the questions that decide what happens next come early: whether workers' compensation applies, whether an outside company's product or work was involved, who has custody of the equipment, and which deadline runs first. A free consultation with Koussan Law can sort out those questions for a specific situation. Call (313) 800-0000 or request a free consultation. Koussan Law has offices in Detroit, Dearborn Heights and Marquette, and the team speaks English, Spanish and Arabic. For background, see the firm's pages on third-party claims after workplace injuries, defective product claims, construction accident claims when workers' compensation falls short and wrongful death claims in Michigan.
Sources
- FOX 2 Detroit, "Dearborn Heights man dies after being pinned under construction truck in Birmingham," October 2, 2026. Read the report
- The Detroit News, "Man fatally pinned under construction truck in Birmingham," October 2, 2026. Read the report
- WDIV ClickOnDetroit, "Man dies after being pinned under construction truck in Birmingham," October 2, 2026. Read the report
- Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, MIOSHA, "Reporting Fatalities and Injuries." Read the requirements
- Michigan Department of Treasury, "Limitation on Noneconomic Damages and Product Liability Determination on Economic Damages," January 30, 2026. Read the notice
- Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, MIOSHA, "2026 MIOSHA Fatality Information," checked October 7, 2026. Read the list
Primary law cited:
- Workers' compensation: MCL 418.131, MCL 418.161, MCL 418.321, MCL 418.345, MCL 418.381, MCL 418.827
- No-fault: MCL 500.3106, MCL 500.3145
- Wrongful death, product liability, fault and deadlines: MCL 600.2922, MCL 600.2945, MCL 600.2946, MCL 600.2946a, MCL 600.2947, MCL 600.2949a, MCL 600.2957, MCL 600.2959, MCL 600.5805, MCL 600.5852
- Federal motor carrier records: 49 CFR 396.3, 49 CFR 396.11
- Cases: Daher v Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City, LLC (Mich. July 30, 2024; Docket No. 165377); Brenner v Kolk, 226 Mich App 149 (1997); Teel v Meredith, 284 Mich App 660 (2009)
Updates
- October 7, 2026, 7:54 a.m. ET: MIOSHA's 2026 fatality information now lists the Oct. 2 death in Birmingham. Its initial-report description says the driver had an issue with an empty dump truck shifting gears, reported it to the employer and was later found by a passerby beneath the truck's lift axle, according to MIOSHA. MIOSHA says the description is not the result of its investigation. No employer, truck owner or company has been named.
- October 4, 2026, 2:12 p.m. ET: Added details from WDIV on the time of the call and the location, near Woodward Avenue and Quarton Road, and expanded the legal analysis on who counts as an employee under Michigan's workers' compensation act (MCL 418.161) and on the alteration, misuse and sophisticated-user defenses in Michigan's product liability law (MCL 600.2947). No employer, truck owner, cause or MIOSHA inspection had been reported as of this update.
How this analysis was prepared
Koussan Law prepared this article from the public reports and records listed under Sources, using news-monitoring software and AI-assisted research and drafting tools, and checked each statement of law against the Michigan statutes, court decisions and federal rules it cites. It explains how Michigan law generally treats events like this one. It is not a finding that any person or company is at fault, it is not legal advice, and it does not mean Koussan Law represents anyone involved.
Facts change as investigations continue; material updates are dated in the update log. To report an error or ask for a correction, contact us.
Important: This is not legal advice
This article is general information about Michigan personal injury law. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on as a substitute for consultation with a licensed Michigan attorney about your specific situation. The laws, deadlines, procedures, and frameworks here are general guidelines that may or may not apply to your case.
Every personal injury case turns on its own unique facts. The timing, the parties, the evidence, the jurisdiction, the insurance available, and dozens of other variables can change the legal analysis. Do not rely on anything written on this website to make decisions about your case.
If you have been injured in Michigan, the only responsible step is to speak with a licensed Michigan attorney about your specific facts. Call Koussan Law at (313) 800-0000 for a free consultation, or contact a different Michigan personal injury attorney of your choosing.
Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with Koussan Law. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
