 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brooks v. Michigan Department of Transportation3/13/2003
UNPUBLISHED
I. Facts and Procedural History
In each of these consolidated cases, the defendant, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) appeals the trial court's order which denied MDOT's motion for summary disposition. Because the trial court erred as a matter of law, we reverse the trial court's decision in all four cases.
In each of these personal injury suits, plaintiffs alleged that a defect in the design of the roadway resulted in injury or death and plaintiffs sought recovery for their injuries from MDOT. In Docket No. 232521, plaintiff asserted that the design of the left turn lanes was defective; in Docket No. 232750, plaintiffs claimed that the sight distance was too short from the top of an overpass to an exit ramp where traffic turned on to the road; in Docket No. 234213, plaintiff said that the sight distance for a crossroad was inadequate; and in Docket No. 235509, plaintiffs maintained that the narrow width of the shoulder on a sharp curve constituted a failure to maintain or repair the roadway.
In each case, MDOT moved for summary disposition and maintained that plaintiffs' claims were barred by governmental immunity because plaintiffs' claims of design defects and inadequate signage do not fall within the applicable highway exception to governmental immunity. The trial court denied the motion in each case, on the grounds that the highway exception encompassed design defect claims because Michigan Supreme Court precedent to the contrary does not apply retrospectively. Because the trial judge ruled incorrectly, as a matter of law, we reverse.
II. Analysis
A. Claims of Design Defect Are Not Covered by the Highway Exception to Governmental Immunity
Although a governmental agency is generally immune from tort liability for actions taken in furtherance of a governmental function, an agency having jurisdiction over a highway is subject to liability if it breaches its duty to "maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel." Our case law makes clear that the grant of governmental immunity must be construed broadly and that this exception, like other exceptions to governmental immunity, is to be narrowly construed. Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 158; 615 NW2d 702 (2000).
MCL 691.1402 imposes duties and liability on state and county road commissions only for the improved portion of the highway. Id.
We are not persuaded that the highway exception contemplates "conditions" arising from "point of hazard," "areas of special danger," or "integral parts of the highway," outside the actual roadbed, paved or unpaved, designed for vehicular travel. None of these phrases or concepts appears anywhere within the provisions of the highway exception. To continue to rely upon these phrases in determining the scope of the highway exception is contrary to the language selected by the Legislature in creating this exception. [Nawrocki, supra, 463 Mich at 176-177.]
In Nawrocki, and its companion case, Evens v Shiawassee Co Rd Comm, our Supreme Court held that the highway exception does not contemplate conditions arising from points of hazard or special dangers outside the actual roadbed designed for vehicular travel. See id. at 179-184. In Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm'rs, 465 Mich 492, 502-504; 638 NW2d 396 (2002), our Supreme Court further held that state and county road commissions have no duty, under the highway exception, to improve upon or correct defects arising from the original design of a roadway and no duty to redesign a roadway:
We agree with the Court of Appeals majority and hold tha
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.
|
|