Opinion ID: 1830403
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Statutory Scheme of the Governmental Immunity Act

Text: In Ross v. Consumers Power Co. (On Rehearing ), [5] we recognized that the governmental immunity act was intended to provide uniform liability and immunity to both state and local government agencies. The preamble to the act notes that it is an act to make uniform the liability of municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and the state, its agencies and departments, officers, employees, and volunteers thereof, and members of certain boards, councils, and task forces when engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function, for injuries to property and persons; to define and limit this liability.... The highway exception is § 2 of the governmental immunity act, M.C.L. § 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1). In it, the Legislature placed a general duty on each governmental agency having jurisdiction over a highway to maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel.... The next sentence imposes liability on a government agency having jurisdiction over a highway for failure to keep a highway under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel.... Thus, liability not only extends to highways in a state of disrepair, but to those in a condition not reasonably safe and fit for travel. The majority concludes that the Legislature did not intend to include traffic control devices within the purview of the highway exception. To reach that conclusion, it reads the first and second sentence of M.C.L. § 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1) separately. The result is that it contradicts the Legislature's clear intent and renders the second sentence nugatory. The second sentence of M.C.L. § 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1) provides: A person who sustains bodily injury or damage to his or her property by reason of failure of a governmental agency to keep a highway under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel may recover the damages suffered by him or her from the governmental agency. In this sentence, the Legislature expressly provides that persons who are injured because a government agency failed to keep a highway in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel may recover damages from that agency. The majority quotes Justice Riley's dissent in Pick, asserting that a duty to keep the highway in a condition reasonably safe for travel does not exist. However, the assertion is refuted by the second sentence of the highway exception, itself. It is illogical to conclude that the Legislature would impose liability where there is no duty. It is a maxim of statutory construction that every word in a statute should be read to give the word meaning. Also, a court should avoid a construction that would render any part of a statute surplusage or nugatory. In re MCI Telecommunications, 460 Mich. 396, 414, 596 N.W.2d 164 (1999); Altman v. Meridian Twp., 439 Mich. 623, 635, 487 N.W.2d 155 (1992). The majority violates these principles by reading the first sentence of the highway exception, but ignoring the second. It renders meaningless the Legislature's intent to allow damages to those injured when a government agency fails to keep a highway under its jurisdiction reasonably safe for public travel. Keeping the highway in a condition reasonably safe for public travel includes maintaining traffic control devices in working order. The majority maintains that traffic control devices are not implicated in the definition of highway under the highway exception to the governmental immunity act. I disagree. Under subsection 1(e) of the governmental immunity act, M.C.L. § 691.1401(e); MSA 3.996(101)(e), Highway means a public highway, road, or street that is open for public travel and includes bridges, sidewalks, trailways, crosswalks, and culverts on the highway. The term highway does not include alleys, trees, and utility poles. As the majority concedes, this definition of highway is broad. Op., p. 719, n. 30. In defining it, the Legislature specifies what is excluded: alleys, trees, and utility poles. Notably, it did not exclude traffic control devices. The majority usurps the Legislature's role by adding traffic control devices to the list of exclusions. This broad definition of highway explains the presence of the fourth sentence of M.C.L. § 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1): The duty of the state and county road commissions to repair and maintain highways, and the liability for that duty, extends only to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel and does not include sidewalks, trailways, crosswalks, or any other installation outside of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel. This sentence relieves county road commissions and the state from liability for installations outside the improved portions of the highway. But the Legislature did not completely bar recovery when an individual is injured because of a defect in a portion of a county highway outside of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel, including a sidewalk, trailway, crosswalk or other installation. MCL 691.1402a(1); MSA 3.996(102a)(1). Instead, the act places liability for those accidents on municipal corporations. MCL 691.1402a(1); MSA 3.996(102a)(1). If a municipal corporation knew about a defect thirty days before a plaintiff's injury and the defect is the proximate cause of the injury, then the corporation is liable. [6] MCL 691.1402a(1)(a) and (b); MSA 3.996(102a)(1)(a) and (b). Under the statutory scheme created by the governmental immunity act, state and county road commissions are liable for defects in the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel. MCL 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1). When a municipal corporation knows or should know about the existence of a defect outside the improved portion of the highway, it is liable for injuries caused by the defect. MCL 691.1402a; MSA 3.996(102a). Maintaining traffic control devices is a governmental function delegated to county road commissions and the state. MCL 257.609(a); MSA 9.2309(a), M.C.L. § 257.610(a); MSA 9.2310(a). The governmental immunity act was intended to make uniform the liability of government agencies when, in the discharge or exercise of certain government functions, persons were injured. One of the functions is maintaining highways in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. Hence, the act includes the highway exception, which is found at M.C.L. § 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1). Defective traffic control devices make highways hazardous for vehicular traffic. It is therefore logical to conclude that the Legislature intended to include traffic control devices in the duty to maintain highways in a condition reasonably safe for public travel. However, the majority has decided that traffic control devices are located outside the improved portions of roads, shifting liability for defective control devices to municipal corporations. I find this conclusion illogical, particularly when county road commissions and the state have the duty to place and maintain traffic control devices on highways. MCL 257.609(a); MSA 9.2309(a); MCL 257.610(a); MSA 9.2310(a). Shifting liability for defective traffic control devices to municipal corporations when it is the county road commissions or the state that have the duty to maintain them is simply senseless.