Johnson v. State

Decision Date26 March 1971
Docket NumberNo. 2,Docket No. 9803,2
CitationJohnson v. State, 188 N.W.2d 33, 32 Mich.App. 37 (Mich. App. 1971)
PartiesJames C. JOHNSON and Barbara C. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STATE of Michigan, Defendant-Appellee
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan

Paul J. Clulo, Sinclair, Edwards & Clulo, Midland, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., Myron A. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.

Before QUINN, P.J., and BRONSON and O'HARA, * JJ.

QUINN, Presiding Judge.

The court of claims granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.GCR 1963, 117.2(1).Plaintiffs appeal.

About 6:30 A.M., September 15, 1969, Barbara Johnson was operating a Volkswagen automobile in the southernmost lane of the westbound lanes of US--10, a state trunkline four lane divided highway.The pavement was dry and atmospheric conditions were normal.In negotiating a curve to her right at a speed of 60 to 65 miles per hour, the automobile Barbara Johnson was driving left the pavement for some reason not apparent from the record.In attempting to return to the paved portion of the road from the shoulder, which was six inches lower than the paved portion, Barbara Johnson lost control of the Volkswagen when its wheels struck the six inch concrete, and the accident ensued.

Alleging that the highway was defective because the shoulder was six inches lower than the pavement and that this condition had existed for six months, plaintiffs asserted liability against the state under M.C.L.A. § 691.1402(Stat.Ann.1969 Rev. § 3.996(102)).Contending that the state was liable only for defects in the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel, which did not include the shoulder, defendant asserted it was not liable.

The immunity of the state from tort liability arising out of the maintenance of state trunkline highways was established in McDowell v. State Highway Commissioner(1961), 365 Mich. 268, 112 N.W.2d 491.To the extent prescribed in P.A.1964, No. 170 (M.C.L.A. §§ 691.1401 et seq.(Stat.Ann.1969 Rev. § 3.996(101) et seq.)), this immunity is waived.The statute must be strictly construed.Johnson v. Board of County Road Commissioners of Ontonagon County(1931), 253 Mich. 465, 235 N.W. 221.

M.C.L.A. § 691.1402, Supra, provides in part:

'The duty of the state and county road commissions to repair and maintain highways, and the liability therefor, shall extend only to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel and shall not include sidewalks, crosswalks or any other installation outside of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel.'

The shoulders of a highway are designed for vehicular traffic...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
20 cases
  • Scheurman v. Department of Transp.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1990
    ...in finding that the duty to maintain safe highways was not limited solely to the surface of the highway.7 See Johnson v. State of Michigan, 32 Mich.App. 37, 188 N.W.2d 33 (1971), Williams v. State Hwy. Dep't, 44 Mich.App. 51, 205 N.W.2d 200 (1972), Detroit Bank & Trust Co. v. State Hwy. Dep......
  • Chaney v. Department of Transp.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1994
    ...were nevertheless intended and designed for vehicular travel. Id., 435 Mich. at 314, 458 N.W.2d 619, citing Johnson v. Michigan, 32 Mich.App. 37, 188 N.W.2d 33 (1971). We held that the highway exception must be tempered by common experience, and that certain installations located beyond the......
  • Grimes v. Michigan Department of Transportation
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • May 31, 2006
    ...at 313, 458 N.W.2d 619. 29. Id. at 310, 458 N.W.2d 619. 30. Id. at 317 n. 5, 458 N.W.2d 619. 31. See, e.g., Johnson v. Michigan, 32 Mich. App. 37, 39, 188 N.W.2d 33 (1971); Van Liere v. State Hwy. Dep't., 59 Mich.App. 133, 136, 229 N.W.2d 369 (1975); Hall v. Dep't of State Hwys., 109 Mich.A......
  • Hall v. State, Michigan Dept. of Highways and Transp.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • September 21, 1981
    ...We cannot but conclude that it is an 'improved portion' in the same sense the shoulders were held to be in Johnson v. Michigan, 32 Mich.App. 37, 39, 188 N.W.2d 33, 35 (1971), in which we said:" 'The shoulders of a highway are designed for vehicular traffic although not of the same character......
  • Get Started for Free