Court Opinion

ID: 9728237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:02:52.784636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.036514
License: Public Domain

Lesinski, C. J. and Quinn, J.
(dissenting). Plaintiff filed a complaint against the county of Wayne, board of Wayne county road commissioners, Clarence Sell and Lois M. Sell. The complaint, which sought to establish liability under the wrongful death act, CLS 1961, § 600.2922 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2922), alleged that plaintiff’s decedent, at 3:10 a.m. on April 27, 1964, was traveling in a southerly direction on Mortenview road in Taylor township; that said Mortenview road was a terminating highway, and that defendants county and board of Wayne county road commissioners failed to post any suitable warning signs or devices warn*382ing that said road was a terminating highway. The complaint further stated that as a result of defendants’ failure to warn of this danger existing on the road, plaintiff’s decedent, who was driving on said Mortenview road, failed to stop or turn at the terminus of said road and collided with a harrier placed by defendants Clarence and Lois M. Sell on their property at the end of Mortenview road, and that this collision resulted in his death.
Defendants, county of Wayne and board of Wayne county road commissioners, filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting they had no duty to post warning signs or devices at the terminus of Mortenview road. The motion was heard, granted, and an order granting summary judgment of no cause of action as to defendants county of Wayne and board of Wayne county road commissioners was entered. Plaintiff appeals.
The issue before the Court is whether the authority having jurisdiction over the highway in question can be charged with negligence by virtue of failing to warn the public of the terminus of the highway. The liability sought to be enforced against defendants is purely statutory; the statute is in derogation of the common law and cannot be enlarged by construction. Goodrich v. County of Kalamazoo (1943), 304 Mich 442.
Plaintiff offers as evidence of the duty of the county to warn of the road’s terminus the provisions of CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.121) which provide in part:
“It is hereby made the duty of the counties to keep in reasonable repair, so that they shall be reasonably safe and convenient for public travel, all county roads, bridges and culverts that are within their jurisdiction and under their care and contro] and which are open to public travel. The provisions *383of law respecting the liability of townships, cities, villages and corporations for damages for injuries resulting from a failure in the performance of the same duty respecting roads under their control, shall apply to counties adopting such county road system.” (Emphasis supplied.)
As interpreted by Goodrich, supra, this statute creates no duty on the part of the defendants to do anything about signs and warning devices. Negligence requires a breach of duty.
In conjunction with CLS 1961, § 224.21, supra, plaintiff cites CLS 1961, § 257.610 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2310) as statutory authority establishing the duty plaintiff contends defendants have with respect to signs and warning devices. The latter statute reads in part:
“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 to 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.” (Emphasis supplied.)
This statute is part of the vehicle code whose title-expressed purpose in this regard is “to provide for the regulation and use of streets and highways.” The section quoted is found in a portion of the code dealing with a uniform system of traffic-control devices, and it says no more than local authorities are given discretion to place and maintain traffic-control devices on highways under their jurisdiction to indicate and to carry out the provisions of the code or local traffic ordinances or to regulate, warn, or guide traffic. If they do so, the devices shall conform to the State manual and spec*384ifieations provided in CLS 1961, § 257.608 (Stat Aim 1960 Rev § 9.2308).
CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.121) and CLS 1961, § 257.610 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2310) cannot be read in pari materia to create the duty plaintiff asserts defendants bear in this action because the statutes do not relate to the same thing nor do they have a common purpose. City of Detroit v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company (1965), 374 Mich 543.
None of the cases relied on by plaintiff support the theory of liability asserted in this action. O’Hare v. City of Detroit (1960), 362 Mich 19, involved the failure of the highway authority to replace a previously erected stop sign; Joslyn v. City of Detroit (1889), 74 Mich 458, involved an obstruction placed upon and improperly allowed to remain on the highway; Longstreet v. County of Mecosta (1924), 228 Mich 542, involved a washed-out bridge; Jewell v. Rogers Township (1919), 208 Mich 318, involved a deep trench cut across an established highway by a quarry company. In each of these cases the road authority had maintained the road in a certain condition, and the duty found was to continue the road in that condition or properly to warn the public of any changes that created a dangerous condition. This is not the case before us.
The acceptance of plaintiff’s theory of liability in this case would mean that failure to warn of every deviation in the direction or surface of a road creates a question of fact with respect to the highway authority’s negligence in accident litigation. This we decline to do in the face of the applicable statutory provisions.
It may well be that current traffic conditions and driving habits dictate that defendants should have the duty that plaintiff here asserts, but that is for *385the legislature to say. It is not for this Court to establish such a duty by enlarging the statute by construction. Summary judgment was proper under the existing law.
We vote to affirm, but without costs, a public question being involved.
McGregor, J., concurred with Lesinski, C. J. and Quinn, J.