Transportation Dept. v. Christensen

• Decision Date: 28 April 1998
• Docket Number: 199716,Docket Nos. 199189
• Citation: 229 Mich.App. 417,581 N.W.2d 807
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
• Parties: William FARMER and Adele Farmer, Plaintiffs, v. Eldon C. CHRISTENSEN, individually and d/b/a C & M Trucking, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellee, and Charles Vaughn, Michele Creger, and Chul Yoon, Defendants. William FARMER and Adele Farmer, Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant/Cross Plaintiff-Appellant.

Page 807

581 N.W.2d 807

229 Mich.App. 417

William FARMER and Adele Farmer, Plaintiffs, v. Eldon C. CHRISTENSEN, individually and d/b/a C & M Trucking, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellee, and Charles Vaughn, Michele Creger, and Chul Yoon, Defendants.

William FARMER and Adele Farmer, Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant/Cross

Plaintiff-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 199189, 199716.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 6, 1997, at Lansing.

Decided April 28, 1998, at 9:05 a.m.

Released for Publication July 29, 1998.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., and Brenda E. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Dept. of Transp.

Bullen, Moilanen, Klaasen & Swan, P.C. by Terry J. Klaasen and David W. Swan, Jackson, for Eldon C. Christensen.

Before SAAD, P.J., and HOLBROOK, and DOCTOROFF, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs William and Adele Farmer brought this negligence action against, among others, Eldon C. Christensen and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) for injuries sustained in a traffic accident that ensued after a gravel hopper loaded on a flatbed semitrailer-truck driven by Chistensen struck a highway overpass. The force of the impact knocked the gravel hopper off the semitrailer-truck and onto the highway where plaintiffs' vehicle struck it. The height of the gravel hopper at the point of impact was over the statutorily allowed maximum. The MDOT brought a cross-claim against Christensen for indemnification of the $25,000 that the MDOT paid to plaintiffs as a result of a consent judgment in the tort action. Cross-plaintiff MDOT now appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting summary disposition to cross-defendant Christensen on the MDOT's indemnification claim. We reverse and remand.

I

"This Court reviews de novo decisions regarding motions for summary disposition to determine if the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law." North Community Healthcare, Inc. v. Telford, 219 Mich.App. 225, 227, 556 N.W.2d 180 (1996). In this appeal we are required to interpret and apply § 719(1) of this state's Vehicle Code:

A vehicle unloaded or with load shall not exceed a height of 13 feet 6 inches. The owner of a vehicle that collides with a lawfully established bridge or viaduct is liable for all damage and injury resulting from a collision caused by the height of the vehicle, whether the clearance of the bridge or viaduct is posted or not. [M.C.L. § 257.719(1); M.S.A. § 9.2419(1).]

The first sentence of § 719(1) establishes the mandatory duty of care, i.e., a vehicle's height must not exceed 13 feet, 6 inches. For purposes of this appeal, the parties do not dispute that Christensen's truck breached this duty of care, being at least 13 feet, 10 inches in height, four inches over the statutorily allowed maximum. The overpass was marked with a sign, installed by the MDOT, indicating that its clearance height was 14 feet, but the accuracy of this measurement is disputed. Nonetheless, from the evidence, it is clear that Christensen's truck struck the overpass, causing the gravel hopper to fall onto the highway. Plaintiffs' vehicle, which was following behind Christensen, then collided with the hopper.

The legal effect of Christensen's violation of the statutory duty of care, standing alone, would be enough to establish a prima facie case of negligence. Zeni v. Anderson, 397 Mich. 117, 128-129, 243 N.W.2d 270 (1976) (penal statute); Klanseck v. Anderson Sales & Service, Inc., 426 Mich. 78, 87, 393 N.W.2d 356 (1986) (licensing statute). While it is recognized that such a presumption of negligence may be rebutted with a showing of an adequate excuse or justification under the circumstances, Zeni, supra at 129-136, 243 N.W.2d 270, Christensen has not presented evidence of excuse or justification. Christensen might also escape liability under the statute if, by applying the "statutory purpose doctrine," id. at 138, n. 22, 243 N.W.2d 270, it were judicially determined that the statute was inapplicable. Such a finding would be inappropriate on these facts because (1) the statute is intended to protect against the result of the violation, (2) plaintiffs are within the class intended to be protected by the statute, and (3) the evidence would support a finding that the violation was a proximate contributing cause of plaintiffs' injuries. Klanseck, supra. Thus, had there been a trial in this matter, the determination of Christensen's negligence should have been conclusively removed from the jury. Id.

Section 719(1), however, does not merely create a presumption of negligence, but rather in its second sentence allows for a finding of absolute liability, i.e., liability "for all damage and injury resulting from a collision caused by the height of the vehicle, whether the clearance of the bridge or viaduct is posted or not." The parties dispute the meaning of this statutory language: the MDOT argues that the language means Christensen is absolutely liable for all damage and injury resulting from his truck's collision with the overpass, while Christensen argues (and the trial court agreed) that his ultimate liability was subject to the principles of comparative fault, joint and several liability, and proximate cause. For several reasons, we find merit in the MDOT's interpretation of the statute.

First, where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we must honor the legislative intent as clearly indicated in that language. Western Michigan Univ. Bd. of Control v. Michigan, 455 Mich. 531, 538-539, 565 N.W.2d 828 (1997). Thus, the phrase in § 719(1), "all damage and injury"--which is susceptible to only one meaning--must be ascribed that plain meaning. Second, while the regulatory scheme of § 719(1) incorporates the need for establishing proximate causation, once established it fixes liability on the violator even where concurrent or intervening acts of negligence precipitate a collision with a bridge or overpass. See 57A Am. Jur. 2d, Negligence, § 792, p. 703. To hold otherwise, and allow Christensen to interpose defenses of comparative fault on the part of plaintiffs or joint and several liability on the part of MDOT for its alleged negligence in marking the overpass with an inaccurate sign, would undermine the plain language of the absolute liability statute as well as its overriding regulatory purpose, i.e., protecting bridges and overpasses, and the traveling public, from damage or injury as a result of nonconforming vehicles. See M.C.L. § 257.725(4); M.S.A. § 9.2425(4) (special-use permit for nonconforming vehicles is required "to protect the safety of the public or to ensure against undue damage to the road"). See also 57B Am. Jur. 2d, Negligence, § 1174, pp. 96-97. Notably, § 719(1) expressly exempts the state from liability regardless of whether it has posted the clearance of the overpass.

This state's appellate courts have not recently interpreted the effect of an absolute liability statute. However, over a century ago, in Flint & P.M. R. Co. v. Lull, 28 Mich. 510 (1874), our Supreme Court considered the legal effect of a violation of a statute that mandated every railroad company to fence its track and place cattle-guards at all road crossings and further provided that a negligent or wilful violation of the statute would render the violator "liable for all damages" that resulted. Id. at 511. In allowing the plaintiff to recover the value of a cow that was killed by a passing train, despite the defendant's allegation that the plaintiff had negligently allowed his cow to run free, Justice Cooley explained:

There still remains the question, however, whether the railway company could be held liable if the plaintiff himself was guilty of contributory negligence. Were this a common-law action it is clear that such contributory negligence would be a defense. But this is not a common-law action. It is an action given expressly by a statute, the purpose of which is not merely to compensate the owner of property destroyed for his loss, but to enforce against the railway company an obligation they owe to the public. The statute is a police regulation, adopted as much for the security of passengers as for the protection of property. And the decisions may almost be said to be uniform that in cases like the present, arising under such statutes, the mere negligence of the plaintiff in the care of his property can constitute no defense. Indeed, if contributory negligence could constitute a defense the purpose of the statute might be in a great measure, if not wholly, defeated, for the mere neglect of the railway company to observe the directions of the statute would render it unsafe for the owner of beasts to suffer them to be at large or even on his own grounds in the vicinity of the road, so that if he did what, but for the neglect of the company, it would be entirely safe and proper for him to do, the very neglect of the company would constitute its protection, since that neglect alone rendered the conduct of the plaintiff negligent. [Id. at 514-515 (citations omitted).]

Lull, of course, was decided long before the Michigan Supreme Court abandoned the common-law doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of comparative negligence. See Placek v. Sterling Heights, 405 Mich. 638, 275 N.W.2d 511 (1979). Since Placek, the Michigan Supreme Court has applied the defense of comparative negligence to a claim involving violation of a workplace safety statute, holding that the underlying public policy of comparative negligence--i.e., to encourage workplace safety by employers and employees alike--overcomes the former view that an action based on an employer's failure to provide adequate safety devices was not subject to the defense of contributory negligence. Hardy v. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc., 414 Mich. 29, 323 N.W.2d 270 (1982). Hardy, however, did not involve application of an absolute liability statute, as here. Thus, we are of the opinion...