Opinion ID: 831621
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: governmental immunity and highway exception

Text: In Michigan, governmental immunity was originally a common-law doctrine that protected all levels of government. However, in 1961, this Court abolished common-law governmental immunity with respect to municipalities. Williams v. Detroit, 364 Mich. 231, 111 N.W.2d 1 (1961); McDowell v. State Hwy. Comm'r, 365 Mich. 268, 112 N.W.2d 491 (1961). In 1965, the Legislature reacted to Williams and McDowell by enacting the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., restoring immunity for municipalities and preserving this protection for the state and its agencies. The GTLA provides: Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency[ [1] ] is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. MCL 691.1407(1). This grant of immunity is currently subject to six statutory exceptions. [2] At issue in this case is the highway exception, MCL 691.1402(1), which provides, in relevant part: Except as otherwise provided in [MCL 691.1402a], each governmental agency having jurisdiction over a highway shall maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel.[ [3] ] 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.... The duty of the state and the 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. Highway is defined as a public highway, road, or street that is open for public travel and includes bridges, sidewalks, trailways, crosswalks, and culverts on the highway. MCL 691.1401(e) (emphasis added). From these statutory provisions, we know that all governmental agencies, including the state, counties, and municipalities, have a duty to maintain highways under their jurisdiction in reasonable repair. However, we also know that the duty of state and county road commissions is limited to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel, which specifically does not include sidewalks.... MCL 691.1402(1). A municipality's duty, on the other hand, is not similarly limited; rather, a municipality has a duty to maintain highways in reasonable repair and highway is specifically defined to include sidewalks. MCL 691.1402(1); MCL 691.1401(e). Thus, while MCL 691.1402(1) exempts state and county road commissions from liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks, municipalities are not exempt; municipalities do have a duty to maintain sidewalks in reasonable repair. Haliw v. Sterling Hts., 464 Mich. 297, 303, 627 N.W.2d 581 (2001) (Pursuant to [MCL 691.1402(1) ], the duty to maintain public sidewalks in `reasonable repair' falls on local governments, including cities, villages, and townships.); Glancy v. City of Roseville, 457 Mich. 580, 584, 577 N.W.2d 897 (1998) ([MCL 691.1402(1)] requires municipalities to maintain sidewalks in `reasonable repair.'); Listanski v. Canton Twp., 452 Mich. 678, 690, 551 N.W.2d 98 (1996) ([T]ownships are liable for injuries occurring on sidewalks that abut state or county roads as a result of their negligent failure to maintain their sidewalks in reasonable repair.), citing Mason v. Wayne Co. Bd. of Comm'rs, 447 Mich. 130, 136 n. 6, 523 N.W.2d 791 (1994) ([T]he purpose of [the limiting sentence of MCL 691.1402(1)], which applies only to counties and the state, is to allocate responsibility for sidewalks and crosswalks to local governments, including townships, cities, and villages.); Jones v. City of Ypsilanti, 26 Mich.App. 574, 581, 182 N.W.2d 795 (1970) (holding that cities are liable for injuries occurring on sidewalks that abut state highways as a result of their negligent failure to maintain their sidewalks in reasonable repair). In other words, when MCL 691.1402(1) and MCL 691.1401(e) are read together, [4] it is clear that all governmental agencies except the state and county road commissions have a duty to maintain sidewalks in reasonable repair. Indeed, in the instant case, defendant does not argue that it does not have a duty to maintain the sidewalk at issue in reasonable repair, [5] but only argues that because the sidewalk's discontinuity defect was less than 2 inches, MCL 691.1402a(2) creates a rebuttable inference that the municipality maintained the sidewalk in reasonable repair and that plaintiff has not rebutted this inference. Therefore, as the Court of Appeals recognized, the salient question... is whether the city is entitled to assert as a defense the two-inch rule set forth in MCL 691.1402a(2). Robinson, 282 Mich. App. at 615, 765 N.W.2d 25.