Case Name: BROWN v. MANISTEE COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1994-04-18
Citations: 204 Mich. App. 574
Docket Number: Docket No. 146762
Parties: BROWN v MANISTEE COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION
Judges: Before: Neff, P.J., and Weaver and K. B. Glaser, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 204
Pages: 574–580

Head Matter:
BROWN v MANISTEE COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION
Docket No. 146762.
Submitted December 16, 1993, at Grand Rapids.
Decided April 18, 1994, at 9:25 a.m.
Leave to appeal sought.
Billy D. Brown brought an action in the Manistee Circuit Court against the Manistee County Road Commission, alleging that he was injured as a result of the failure of the defendant to maintain in reasonable repair the surface of a road under its control. The court, James M. Batzer, J., granted summary disposition for the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had not complied with the sixty-day notice requirement of MCL 224.21; MSA 9.121 and that the defendant was prejudiced by the plaintiff’s failure to give timely notice because the road in question was resurfaced sixty-one days after the accident. The plaintiff appealed, and the defendant cross appealed.
The Court of Appeals held:
1. The trial court properly held that the sixty-day notice period of MCL 224.21; MSA 9.121 in the county road statute relating specifically to actions against boards of county road commissioners, rather than the more general 120-day notice period of MCL 691.1404(1); MSA 3.996(104)(1) in the governmental liability statute, is the appropriate period to be applied in this action.
2. The record shows, and the trial court properly found, that the failure to give the required timely notice prejudiced the defendant by making it impossible for it to examine, photograph, or test the road surface before the resurfacing. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary disposition for the defendant.
3. The defendant’s issue in its cross appeal is rendered moot by the disposition of plaintiff’s appeal.
Affirmed.
Neff, J., dissenting, stated that the appropriate notice period was the 120-day period contained in the governmental liability statute and that, in any event, the separate shorter notice period for actions against county road commissions violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection.
References
Am Jur 2d, Highways, Streets, and Bridges §§ 104, 346, 581.
Liability, in motor vehicle-related cases, of governmental entity for injury or death resulting from failure to repair pothole in surface of highway or street. 98 ALR3d 101.
1. Highways — Negligence — Notice — County Road Commissioners — Governmental Liability Statute.
An action against a board of county road commissioners for damages sustained as a result of the failure to keep a road in reasonable repair is subject to the sixty-day notice provision of the county road statute rather than the 120-day notice provision of the governmental liability statute (MCL 224.21, 691.1404[1]; MSA 9.121, 3.996[104][1]).
2. Highways — Negligence — Notice — County Road Commissioners — Prejudice.
An action against a board of county road commissioners for damages sustained as a result of the failure to keep a road in reasonable repair may be dismissed for failure to comply with the sixty-day notice provision of the county road statute only upon a showing of prejudice; prejudice is shown where the claim is based on a defect of the road surface and tardy notice of the defect is not given until after the road has been resurfaced (MCL 224.21; MSA 9.121).
Keller & Katkowsky, P.C. (by Lawrence S. Kat-kowsky), for the plaintiff.
Smith, Haughey, Rice & Roegge (by Craig R. Noland), for the defendant.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Weaver and K. B. Glaser, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Weaver, J.
Plaintiff, Billy D. Brown, was injured in a motorcycle accident on June 12, 1988. Brown was traveling on Sherman Street in Manis-tee County when he struck a large pothole filled with torn-up blacktop, causing him to lose control of his motorcycle. Brown brought suit on June 11, 1990, alleging that defendant, the Manistee County Road Commission, was negligent.
On September 5, 1991, defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). Defendant asserted that Brown had failed to comply with the sixty-day notice provision contained in MCL 224.21; MSA 9.121. The trial court found Brown was subject to the sixty-day notice provision, and that defendant was prejudiced by Brown's failure to give notice because the road had been repaved sixty-one days after the accident. Brown now appeals as of right from the November 5, 1991, order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. We affirm.
The question is whether Brown is subject to the sixty-day notice requirement set forth in MCL 224.21; MSA 9.121, such that Brown's claim is barred for failure to give notice within the required statutory period.
MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102) governs governmental liability for injuries sustained on defective highways. It provides that the "liability, procedure and remedy as to county roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission shall be as provided in . . . 224.21 of the Michigan Compiled Laws." MCL 224.21; MSA 9.121 states in pertinent part:
That no board of county road commissioners, subject to any liability under this section, shall be liable for damages sustained by any person upon any county road, either to his person or property, by reason of any defective county road, bridge or culvert under the jurisdiction of the board of county road commissioners, unless such person shall serve or cause to be served within 60 days after such injury shall have occurred, a notice in writing upon the clerk and upon the chairman of the board of county road commissioners of such board .
Brown argues that this provision is superseded by MCL 691.1404(1); MSA 3.996(104X1), another provision of the act relating to governmental liability, which provides that a notice must be served within 120 days as a condition to any recovery for injuries sustained by reason of any defective highway.
Statutes that relate to the same subject or share a common purpose, such as the statutes in the instant case, are in pari materia and must be read together as one law. Feld v Robert & Charles Beauty Salon, 174 Mich App 309, 317; 435 NW2d 474 (1989), rev'd on other grounds 435 Mich 352; 459 NW2d 279 (1990). If the statutes lend themselves to a construction that avoids conflict, that construction should control. Baxter v Gates Rubber Co, 171 Mich App 588, 590; 431 NW2d 81 (1988). When two statutes conflict, and one is specific to the subject matter while the other is only generally applicable, the specific statute prevails. People v Tucker, 177 Mich App 174, 179; 441 NW2d 59 (1989).
Here, MCL 224.21; MSA 9.121, the county road law, deals exclusively with boards of county road commissioners. Therefore, the sixty-day notice period prevails over the 120-day notice period.
The next question is whether Brown's claim is barred under MCL 224.21; MSA 9.121 for failure to give notice. Our Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of such a notice requirement only where failure to give notice within the prescribed time results in actual prejudice to the defendant. See Hobbs v Dep't of State Hwys, 398 Mich 90, 96; 247 NW2d 754 (1976); Kerkstra v Dep't of State Hwys, 398 Mich 103, 106; 247 NW2d 759 (1976); Appel v Dep't of State Hwys, 398 Mich 110, 112; 247 NW2d 762 (1976).
Here, defendant made a sufficient showing of actual prejudice. The road area on which the accident occurred had been resurfaced on August 12, 1988, sixty-one days after the date of Brown's accident. Accordingly, defendant was unable to take photographs, examine the pothole, or perform other relevant tests on the surface of the road. Accordingly, we find the court properly granted defendant's motion for summary disposition.
Defendant cross appealed, asking that we reverse the court's denial of defendant's prior motion for summary disposition. Our resolution of plaintiffs appeal makes the assignment of error moot. We affirm.
K. B. Glaser, J., concurred.