Opinion ID: 846036
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gregg was Wrongly Decided and Poorly Reasoned

Text: Although the Court of Claims and the Court of Appeals relied on Gregg to deny defendant summary disposition, we overrule Gregg's conclusion that a shoulder is designed for vehicular travel. That conclusion rested heavily on the fact that the inner portion of the shoulder included a designated bicycle path. The Gregg majority expressed doubt that it would have reached the same conclusion had the designated bicycle path been located further from the edge of the travel lane of the highway. [38] This unusual factual premise an integrated, dedicated bicycle path from the standpoint of statutory construction is irrelevant. We believe Gregg is consequently so internally inconsistent that it does not yield a meaningful rule applicable to all shoulders on Michigan's highways. Frankly, upon close inspection, Gregg is an enigma. Its core assumption is that the location of the integrated bicycle path determined the outcome of that case. We cannot ascertain why the location of the integrated bicycle pathwhether it was located on the inner portion or the outer fringe of the shoulderbore so heavily or at all on the question whether the shoulder was designed for vehicular travel. [39] Furthermore, the Gregg majority's analysis, as we will show, is not based on the text of the GTLA and is seriously flawed. Therefore, we overrule Gregg and its progeny to the extent that they can be read to suggest that a shoulder is designed for vehicular travel.