Opinion ID: 846036
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gregg v. State Hwy. Dep't.

Text: Plaintiffs urge this Court to affirm the judgments of the lower courts on the basis of our decision in Gregg v. State Hwy. Dep't ., [24] which we decided before Nawrocki. In Gregg, this Court considered whether the highway exception was available to a bicyclist injured by a defect in a designated bicycle path on the inner portion of the paved shoulder of a state highway. [25] The plaintiff suffered extensive injuries when he struck a pothole on the bicycle path and overturned his bicycle. For purposes of deciding whether the trial court had properly granted the defendant's motion for summary disposition, this Court relied on a photograph of the accident scene, which pictured a bicycle path situated between the traveled portion of the highway and its paved shoulder. [26] The majority in Gregg reversed the judgment granting summary disposition that had been entered in favor of the defendant, concluding that the shoulder was designed for vehicular travel. Gregg's first task was to distinguish the bicycle path in that case from the bicycle path at issue in Roy v. Dep't of Transportation. [27] Roy also involved an injury sustained on a bicycle path, and we concluded there that the plaintiff's claim was barred by governmental immunity. In distinguishing the two cases, the Gregg majority placed a great deal of reliance on where the bicycle path in that case was located in relationship to the roadbed. [28] Whereas the bicycle path in Gregg comprised part of the inner portion of the shoulder, the bicycle path in Roy ran parallel to and was detached from the highway. As a result, Gregg expressly rested its holding on the assumption that the bicycle path at issue comprised part of the inner portion of the shoulder closest to the roadway, [29] later conceding that it would have been a closer question if the bike path had been on the outer fringes of the shoulder. . . . [30] After distinguishing Roy, the Gregg majority offered several reasons to support its conclusion that the shoulder encompassing the bicycle path fell within the highway exception. It noted the uninterrupted line of cases from the Court of Appeals beginning in 1971 holding that a shoulder was designed for vehicular travel. [31] Because the Legislature did not overrule that line of cases when it amended the GTLA over the years, this served as proof to the Gregg majority that the Legislature approved of this line of cases construing the highway exception. The Gregg majority also held that it flies in the face of common experience to say that a shoulder is not designed for vehicular travel. It opined: Any motorist who has ever experienced a highway emergency understands that shoulders are essential to a safe modern highway. To get on or off a shoulder to stop, park, or leave standing a vehicle, motorists must travel on the shoulder. At the high speeds of modern vehicles, such an endeavor often results in significant travel, in the ordinary sense, on the shoulder of a highway. Indeed, it seems quite extraordinary, if not fictional, to assume that vehicles do not travel on shoulders or that shoulders are not designed for vehicular travel, albeit of a temporary sort. [32] In further support of its holding, the Gregg majority cited what it believed to be apposite definitions from the Michigan Vehicle Code (MVC). [33] It noted that the MVC defines highway more broadly than roadway. Whereas in the MVC a highway encompasses the entire width between the boundary lines, [34] a roadway is only that portion of the highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. [35] According to the Gregg majority, the Legislature's use of the broader term highway in the highway exception of the GTLA evinced its intent to sweep the shoulder into that exception. Otherwise, it reasoned, the Legislature would have used the more narrowly defined term roadway to cabin the scope of the highway exception. Justice Griffin dissented from the Gregg majority opinion, arguing, among other things, that the plain language of the highway exception excluded the shoulder. [36] He emphasized that the highway exception extends only to a portion of the highway, that is, the portion designed for vehicular travel. [37]