Opinion ID: 1830403
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Words Improved Portion of the Highway Designed for Vehicular Travel Refer to More Than Just the Roadbed

Text: Had the Legislature intended to impose liability on county road commissions and the state for defects in the surface of roads, alone, it could have and would have said so. The plain meaning of the words improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel connotes a broader concept than just the surface of the road, itself. The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the controlling intent of the Legislature. Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co., 439 Mich. 370, 376-377, 483 N.W.2d 844 (1992). When determining legislative intent, statutory language should be given a reasonable construction considering its purpose and the object sought to be accomplished. Wills v. Iron Co. Bd. of Canvassers, 183 Mich.App. 797, 801, 455 N.W.2d 405 (1990). As the majority hints, this Court has long struggled with the outrageously imperfect language of the highway exception to governmental immunity. Op., p. 715. That long struggle, alone, supports the conclusion that the language of the highway exception is far from plain. [3] However, the majority asserts that the language of the statute is plain, in the sense that it lacks ambiguity. I differ with the majority's conclusory assertion that the statutory phrase improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel has a plain meaning wilfully disregarded by this Court in Pick v. Szymczak, 451 Mich. 607, 548 N.W.2d 603 (1996). Standing alone, the phrase does not specify that the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel includes only the surface of the highway. For example, it leaves uncertain whether the space above the highway containing traffic lights is included. Because it does not, the words improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel might include traffic control devices. Beyond dispute, they constitute an improvement, inasmuch as they are placed on or above the highway by a government agency to improve vehicular travel. As we noted in Pick, vehicles do not travel solely on the two-dimensional length and width of the roadway, but in three dimensional space. Id. at 622-623, 548 N.W.2d 603. And for obvious reasons, it is impossible to place traffic control devices on the roadbed that the vehicles touch while traveling. Provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code support the conclusion that the Legislature envisioned traffic control devices as an integral part of the highway itself: The state highway commission shall place or require to be placed and maintain or require to be maintained such traffic control devices, conforming to said manual and specifications, upon all state highways as it shall deem necessary to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this chapter or to regulate, warn or guide traffic. [MCL 257.609(a); MSA 9.2309(a) (emphasis added).] The county road commission has a similar duty: Local authorities and county road commissions in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain such traffic control devices upon highways under their jurisdiction as they may deem necessary to indicate and carry out the provisions of this chapter or local traffic ordinances or to regulate, warn or guide traffic. All such traffic control devices hereafter erected shall conform to the state manual and specifications. [MCL 257.610(a); MSA 9.2310(a) (emphasis added).] [4] The Legislature's use of the word upon indicates that traffic control devices are on, not off highways. The Legislature appears to have intended that they become a part of the highway itself. Since we cannot determine from the phrase alone whether it includes improvements such as traffic devices, it is appropriate to analyze the provisions of the governmental immunity act as a whole.