Pick v. Gratiot County Road Com'n, Docket Nos. 137719
| Decision Date | 27 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | 137952,Docket Nos. 137719 |
| Parties | John Oliver PICK and Sally Pick, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jan Albert Szymczak, and GRATIOT COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees. Debbie Lynn SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GRATIOT COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION, jointly and severally, Defendant-Appellee, and Jan Albert Szymczak and John Oliver Pick, Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Dan Doneth, Okemos, for John O. Pick and Sally Pick.
Becker & Van Cleef, P.C. by Robert Van Cleef, Southfield, for Debbie L. Sullivan.
Law Offices of Rusch & Prine by Andrew W. Prine, P.C., Saginaw, for Gratiot County Road Com'n.
Before WAHLS, P.J., and SHEPHERD and MARK J. CAVANAGH, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erroneously decided that the road commission was shielded by governmental immunity, M.C.L. § 691.1402; M.S.A. § 3.996(102), because it had no duty to maintain areas outside the improved portion of the roadway. We affirm.
On September 5, 1988, plaintiff John Oliver Pick was driving east on Roosevelt Road when his vehicle collided with a vehicle being driven south on Crappo Road by defendant Jan Albert Szymczak. Plaintiffs Sally Pick and Debbie L. Sullivan, passengers in the Pick vehicle, also suffered injuries. The intersection was under the jurisdiction of the road commission and was not controlled by any traffic devices or warning signs.
The Picks and Sullivan brought separate actions against the road commission and others, alleging in part that the road commission (hereafter defendant) negligently failed to design, construct, and maintain the roadway at the intersection where the accident occurred. They further alleged that the defendant failed to control the vegetation growing around the intersection, failed to install traffic control signs, and failed to provide signs warning motorists of the intersection.
Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing in part that plaintiffs' claims were barred by governmental immunity. Defendant maintained that there was no allegation that a defective condition existed within the traveled portion of the roadbed, but rather that orchards located on private property surrounding the intersection allegedly had created a visual obstruction for oncoming motorists. Consequently, because the plaintiffs did not allege a breach of the defendant's duty to maintain the improved portion of the roadway, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs' claims did not fall within the highway exception to governmental immunity. The trial court agreed with the defendant, and we find no error in that decision.
The legislative intent of the statute was to impose a duty on the state to keep the traveled roadbed in reasonable repair. Scheurman v. Dep't of Transportation, 434 Mich. 619, 631, 456 N.W.2d 66 (1990). However, the duty is narrowly drawn, and extends only to the improved, traveled portion of the roadbed of the highway that was designed for vehicular travel; it does not include sidewalks, crosswalks, or any other installation outside the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel. Fogarty v. Dep't of Transportation, 200 Mich.App. 572, 504 N.W.2d 710 (1993).
Furthermore, "neither street lighting nor vegetation growing on private property adjacent to a road can be classified as being part of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel." Scheurman, supra, 434 Mich. at 623, 456 N.W.2d 66. The highway exception statute negates the inclusion of street lighting within the duty of the state because the physical structure of the lights falls outside the traveled or paved portion of the roadbed actually designed for public vehicular travel. Id. at 633, 456 N.W.2d 66.
In this case, it is very clear that the orchards on private property adjacent to the road cannot be classified as being part of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel. Consequently, the existence of the orchards and their influence as a visual obstruction of the intersection creates no duty on the part of the defendant under the highway exception to governmental immunity.
What is not so clear is whether the improved portion of the highway includes improvements that serve as integral parts of the highway, such as signs and shoulders. See Scheurman, supra at 637, n. 29, 456 N.W.2d 66; Salvati v. State Hwy Dep't, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nawrocki v. Macomb County Road Com'n
...could not be liable for a failure to install traffic signs, in reliance on the Court of Appeals decision in Pick v. Gratiot Co. Rd. Comm., 203 Mich.App. 138, 511 N.W.2d 694 (1993). The circuit court specifically rejected the SCRC's intervening negligence One year after the circuit court's g......
-
Wechsler v. Wayne County Road Com'n
...as contrary to factual determinations made by the trial court, we deem those findings clearly erroneous. Pick v. Gratiot Co. Rd. Comm., 203 Mich.App. 138, 511 N.W.2d 694 (1993); Tuttle, supra at 52, 243 N.W.2d A governmental agency having jurisdiction over a highway has a statutory obligati......
-
Pick v. Szymczak, Docket No. 98142
...areas outside the improved portion of the roadway" and, accordingly, reviewed it as a grant under MCR 2.116(C)(8). 203 Mich.App. 138, 139, 511 N.W.2d 694 (1993). We agree, and will review the Court of Appeals decision under the same standard. B The Court of Appeals panel cited Scheurman, su......
-
Burkholder v. Lenawee County Road Com'n
...contrast, three panels of the Michigan Court of Appeals have considered this specific issue. First, in Pick v. Gratiot County Rd. Comm'n, 203 Mich.App. 138, 511 N.W.2d 694, 696 (1993), although the court recognized that it was "not so clear ... whether the improved portion of the highway in......