Case Name: LISTANSKI v. CANTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1994-08-01
Citations: 206 Mich. App. 356
Docket Number: Docket No. 154045
Parties: LISTANSKI v CANTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP
Judges: Before: Hood, P.J., and R. J. Danhof and J. Stempien, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 206
Pages: 356–373

Head Matter:
LISTANSKI v CANTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP
Docket No. 154045.
Submitted January 12, 1994, at Detroit.
Decided August 1, 1994, at 9:15 a.m.
Leave to appeal sought.
Ethel and Raymond Listanski brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Canton Charter Township, alleging that the township was liable pursuant to the highway exception to governmental immunity for injuries sustained by Ethel Listanski when she slipped and fell on a public sidewalk adjacent to a county road in the township. The court, Marianne O. Battani, J., granted summary disposition for the township, ruling the highway exception inapplicable because the township lacked jurisdiction over the sidewalk. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeals held:
The term "highway” has been defined for purposes of the highway exception to governmental immunity to include sidewalks. MCL 691.1401(e); MSA 3.996(101)(e). Although a township is statutorily authorized to install sidewalks along a highway that is under the jurisdiction of a board of county road commissioners and to enact ordinances relating to the maintenance and repair of such sidewalks if the township obtains the approval of the county road commissioners, MCL 41.288(1); MSA 9.585(3)(1) and MCL 41.288a; MSA 9.585(4), a township is under no duty to repair sidewalks that are adjacent to a county road.
Affirmed.
J. Stempien, J., dissenting, stated that a township has jurisdiction over a sidewalk along a county road within the boundaries of the township where the sidewalk is placed there by authority granted by statute to the township, and the township is liable pursuant to MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102) for damages arising out of the failure to keep the sidewalk in reasonable repair.
References
Am Jur 2d, Highways, Streets, and Bridges §§ 5, 104; Municipal, County, School, and State Tort Liability §§ 90, 111, 326.
See ALR Index under Governmental Immunity or Privilege; Sidewalks.
Governmental Immunity — Highways — Sidewalks — Counties — Townships.
A township needs the approval of the county in which it is located in order to maintain or repair a public sidewalk that is adjacent to a county road within the township; accordingly, for purposes of the highway exception to governmental immunity, the township lacks sufficient jurisdiction over such sidewalks to incur liability for personal injury sustained thereon (MCL 41.288(1), 41.288a, 691.1401[e], 691.1402; MSA 9.585[3][1], 9.585[4], 3.996[101][e], 3.996[102]).
Rattner, Steinberg & Associates (by Ronald A. Steinberg), for the plaintiffs.
Cummings, McClory, Davis & Acho, P.C. (by Marcia L. Howe), for the defendant.
Before: Hood, P.J., and R. J. Danhof and J. Stempien, JJ.
Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1993-6.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
R. J. Danhof, J.
Plaintiffs Ethel and Raymond Listanski appeal as of right from the circuit court's orders granting defendant Canton Township's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). We affirm.
On August 25, 1989, Ethel Listanski slipped and fell on a public sidewalk adjacent to a county road in front of a residence in Canton Township. The plaintiffs brought suit against the township and George Gornell, the owner of the residence, alleging that the sidewalk was not in reasonable repair. The trial court summarily dismissed the township, finding that the highway exception to governmental immunity did not apply because the township did not have jurisdiction over the sidewalk upon which Ethel fell.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the township has jurisdiction over the sidewalk and that the highway exception to governmental immunity therefore applied. We disagree.
The defective highway exception to governmental immunity applies where a governmental agency's failure to maintain in reasonable repair a highway under its jurisdiction causes bodily injury. MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102). This exception applies to municipal corporations. MCL 691.1401(a) and (d); MSA 3.996(lÓl)(a) and (d). The term "highway" includes sidewalks. MCL 691.1401(e); MSA 3.996(101)(e). .
Defendant asserted that the county had jurisdiction over the road adjacent to the sidewalk and that it did not have jurisdiction to repair the sidewalk without the county's permission. In support of this allegation, defendant submitted the affidavit of Tom Casari, the engineer for Canton Township. Plaintiffs rely upon Jones v Ypsilanti, 26 Mich App 574; 182 NW2d 795 (1970), in asserting that the township and the county had concurrent jurisdiction over the sidewalk. Jones involved a plaintiff who fell on a sidewalk along a state trunk line highway in a city. This Court construed Const 1963, art 5, § 28 and art 7, § 29 in finding that the city retained reasonable control over state trunk line highways within its boundaries. Art 5, § 28 established a state highway commission to obtain jurisdiction and control over trunk line highways. Art 7, § 29 provides in relevant part:
Except as otherwise provided in this constitution the right of all counties, townships, cities and villages to the reasonable control of their highways, streets, alleys and public places is hereby reserved to such local units of government.
There were no statutory provisions. limiting the city's control over the sidewalks within its boundaries. Thus, this Court rejected the city's claim that it did not have jurisdiction over the sidewalk.
This case is distinguishable because a township is involved. MCL 41.288(1); MSA 9.585(3)(1) authorizes a township, through its board, to install sidewalks along a highway, but contains the following limitation:
A highway under the jurisdiction of the director of the state transportation department or the board of county road commissioners shall not be improved under this act without the written approval of the director of the state transportation department or the board of county road commissioners.
Further, MCL 41.288a; MSA 9.585(4) authorizes a township to enact ordinances relating to sidewalk maintenance and repairs along county roads, but further requires the approval of the county. Therefore, the Legislature has limited a township's jurisdiction over the sidewalks within its boundaries by requiring the county road commissioners' approval of repairs. There also is no provision imposing a duty upon the township to repair sidewalks adjacent to county or state roads. See Court v Clark, 19 Mich App 261, 263; 172 NW2d 545 (1969). Accordingly, this Court finds that Canton Township did not have jurisdiction to repair the sidewalk upon which plaintiff Ethel Listanski fell, and that the court did not err in summarily dismissing plaintiffs' claims.
Affirmed.
Hood, P.J., concurred.