Opinion ID: 1830403
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: nawrocki v. macomb county road commission

Text: In Nawrocki v. Macomb County Road Commission, the trial court relied on obiter dictum from Mason v. Wayne Co. Bd. of Comm'rs [1] to conclude that the highway exception to governmental immunity does not protect pedestrians, unless their injuries result from vehicular accidents. In so holding, the trial court ignored this Court's ruling in Gregg v. State Hwy. Dep't, 435 Mich. 307, 458 N.W.2d 619 (1990). In Mason, the ten-year-old plaintiff entered a roadway near his school and, while in the intersection, was struck by a vehicle running a red light. Id. at 132-133, 523 N.W.2d 791. He sued the Wayne County Board of Commissioners to recover for his injuries on the theory that the board should have provided signs warning drivers that a school was nearby. Id. This Court found that the highway exception did not apply and that the plaintiff's suit was barred by governmental immunity. Id. at 138, 523 N.W.2d 791. The holding was based on a finding that [t]he highway exception specifically excepts the state and counties from liability for defects in crosswalks, the defect alleged by the plaintiff.... Id. at 135, 523 N.W.2d 791. In a footnote in Mason, this Court stated: It is true that [a]ny person may recover, but only for injuries that result from vehicular accidents. If a defect in the improved portion of the highway causes a traffic accident, any person injured as a result of that accident may recover, including injured passengers or pedestrians, if any, and the owner of the vehicle. [ Id. at 135, n. 4, 523 N.W.2d 791.] The issue in Mason was whether the highway exception applies to a pedestrian injured in a crosswalk, not whether pedestrians in other locations can recover under the exception. Therefore, I regard footnote 4 as mere dictum. In Gregg, however, the defendant argued that the highway exception did not apply to nonmotorists. [2] Id. at 310-311, 458 N.W.2d 619. We rejected the argument because the highway exception expressly includes any person sustaining bodily injury or damage to his property.... Id. at 311, 458 N.W.2d 619. Thus, Gregg stands for the proposition that the highway exception allows injured pedestrians and the occupants of motor vehicles to recover. The injuries must have been caused by the failure of county road commissions or the state to maintain the improved portion of a highway designed for vehicular travel. In this case, the trial court erred when it rejected the holding of Gregg in favor of dictum from Mason. I agree with the majority that the trial court should not have granted the defendant's motion for summary disposition.