Crook v. Patterson, Docket No. 12264
| Decision Date | 26 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 12264,3 |
| Parties | Marlene CROOK, Administratrix of the Estate of Bruce I. Crook, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virgil W. PATTERSON and The Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Saginaw, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Webster Cook, Smith & Brooker, Saginaw, for Patterson.
J. Michael Fordney, Egloff, Mainolfi, Taylor, McGraw & Collison, Saginaw, for Rd. Comm.
Clark Shanahan, Shanahan & Scheid, Owosso, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, P.J., and LEVIN and BORRADAILE, * JJ.
In Reich v. State Highway Department, 386 Mich. 617, 194 N.W.2d 700 (1972), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the 60-day-notice provision of § 4 of the Government Tort Immunity Act (1964 P.A. 170; M.C.L.A. § 691.1404 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.996(104) et seq.) violates the equal protection guarantees of the Michigan and Federal Constitutions and is, therefore, void and of no effect.
Under the provisions of that act, 'the liability, procedure and remedy as to county roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission shall be as provided in section 21, chapter 4 of Act No. 283 of the Public Acts of 1909, as amended, being section 224.21 of the Compiled Laws of 1948 (M.C.L.A. § 224.21; M.S.A. § 9.121).' M.C.L.A. § 691.1402; M.S.A. § 3.996(102).
Section 21 of the 1909 act, like § 4 of the 1964 act, requires that notice of injury be given within 60 days from the time the injury occurs. The rationale of Reich obliges us to hold that the 60-day-notice provision of § 21 of the 1909 act, like the 60-day-notice provision of the 1964 act, is unconstitutional.
Affirmed. Costs to plaintiffs.
* EARL E. BORRADAILE, Probate Judge, Genesee County, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const.1963, art. 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Streng v. Bd. of Mackinac Cnty. Rd. Comm'rs
...the 60–day notice provision of MCL 224.21 and concluded that it, too, was unconstitutional and therefore void. Crook v. Patterson, 42 Mich.App. 241, 242, 201 N.W.2d 676 (1972). Reich II, however, was abrogated by Rowland, 477 Mich. at 206–207, 222, 731 N.W.2d 41, which called the decision "......
-
Brugger v. Midland Cnty. Bd. of Rd. Commissioners
...for private tortfeasors.3 Reich did not address MCL 224.31, but shortly after it was decided, we concluded in Crook v. Patterson , 42 Mich. App. 241, 242, 201 N.W.2d 676 (1972), that the rationale in Reich applied to that statute as well, and this Court struck down the MCL 222.421(3) notice......
-
Turner v. Staggs
...194 N.W.2d 700 (1972); Friedman v. Farmington Township School District, 40 Mich.App. 197, 198 N.W.2d 785 (1972); Crook v. Patterson, 42 Mich.App. 241, 201 N.W.2d 676 (1972). The stated object of NRS 41.031 is to waive the immunity of governmental units and agencies from liability for injuri......
-
Pearce v. Eaton Cnty. Rd. Comm'n
...proper function when it declares this enactment unfair and unenforceable.[15 ]Although the statute at issue in Reich was the GTLA, in Crook v. Patterson ,16 the Court of Appeals recognized that Reich ’s reasoning applied with equal force to the County Road Law, holding that the 60-day notic......