 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ridley v. City of Detroit9/23/2003
e opinions are not a proper forum to articulate personal sentiments; however, this opinion is not meant to seek particular legislation but rather seeks legal clarification on a matter of great importance, i.e., the safety of our public roadways.
MCL 691.1402(1) indicates that the relevant governmental agency shall maintain a highway under its jurisdiction in "reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. " (Emphasis added). Although MCL 691.1401(e) defines a highway as a "public highway, road, or street . . ." without specific reference to traffic signals, signs, and lighting, a necessary and indispensable part of any road or street are such traffic devices which safely guide the public in their travels down a roadway. It should go without saying that the mandate to keep a road in reasonable repair includes the need to properly operate traffic devices with respect to that road; the devices are an integral part of the road. One can imagine the chaos and havoc that would ensue on Michigan roads without traffic signals, signs, and lighting that operated properly. We find it clear that the overriding concern of the Legislature was the safety of motorists and pedestrians in using the roadways. See MCL 691.1402(1). To separate and distinguish the actual roadbed from traffic signals, signs, and lighting that directs traffic on the roadbed seems illogical and inconsistent with public safety even if it arguably is consistent with a plain textualist reading of the statute.
We are required to conclude that the Legislature intended governmental agencies to be immune from liability where, for example:
(a) a stop light malfunctions at an intersection, showing green lights to all oncoming traffic, and the local municipality fails for several hours, days, or years after notice to take corrective or safety measures before which time a motorist is injured in a collision caused by the malfunction, or where
(b) a municipality negligently places a single one-way sign pointing in a direction opposite of the actual traffic flow thereby causing a head-on collision to a motorist entering the one-way street, or where
(c) a municipality fails to provide lighting at an intersection heavily used by motorists and pedestrians resulting in a car-pedestrian accident, or where
(d) a new road is constructed intersecting an established road without a stop sign or light being added prior to opening the road, resulting in a collision.
Of course, a list of scenarios could be unending. The point is that the Legislature indicated the desire to keep highways "reasonably safe and convenient for public travel," and yet these scenarios would not result in the protection of the public, nor in any liability of a governmental agency, thus removing a motivating factor in obtaining governmental action. If the Legislature intended for there to be no consequences for failure to properly maintain traffic signals, signs, and lighting, so be it; however, if this is not what was or is intended, the Legislature may want to act accordingly.
Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of defendant. We do not retain jurisdiction.
William B. Murphy
Janet T. Neff
I concur in result only.
David H. Sawyer
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|