Court Opinion

ID: 9728238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:02:52.789723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.038354
License: Public Domain

Holbrook, J.
(dissenting). After careful review of the law applicable to the instant case and the opinions of my brother judges, I find it necessary to deal with the matter further in this separate opinion.
The facts are repeated as stated in Mullins v. Wayne County (1966), 4 Mich App 359, 360, 361:
“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 defendant county and board of Wayne county road commissioners failed to post any suitable warning signs or devices warning that said road was a terminating highway. The complaint further stated that as a result of defendant’s 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 barrier 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,
*386“Defendants, county of Wayne and board of Wayne county road commissioners, filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting they bad 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 legislature in its wisdom, as early as 1893,1 granted limited abrogation of governmental immunity as to suits against a county for improper maintenance of county roads. The act has been amended many times. In its present form, CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.121) provides for the liability, procedure and remedy as to county roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission. It reads in pertinent part as follows:
“It is hereby made the duty of the counties to keep in reasonable repair, so that they shall be reasonably safe and covenient for public travel, all county roads, bridges and culverts that are within their jurisdiction and under their care and control and which are open to public travel. The provisions of 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.”
This legislative act granting limited abrogation of governmental immunity has not been changed by the rulings of onr Supreme Court in Myers v. Genesee County Auditor (1965), 375 Mich 1 and Williams v. City of Detroit (1961), 364 Mich 231. The liability of defendant Wayne county is therefore *387restricted to a cause of action based upon the failure of the county road commission to comply with the statute. This decision is consonant with the present law as to governmental immunity in this State.2
Plaintiff’s complaint, in order to properly state a cause of action for negligence against the defendant county must be grounded on CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.121). The complaint should contain allegations that (1) the highway was not maintained in a condition reasonably safe and fit *388for travel, (2) the comity has knowledge or notice or should have had knowledge or notice of the dangerous condition which it refused, failed, or neglected to correct, (3) the injury or injuries to plaintiff were caused in fact or proximately caused by the county’s alleged breach of duty, and (4) the plaintiff sustained damages.
The trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant was proper in that plaintiff’s complaint was deficient because it failed to allege the second and third elements outlined above.
Plaintiff, by her complaint, bases her cause of action on a claimed violation by defendant of CLS 1961, § 257.610 subd (a) (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2310 subd [a]) which reads as follows:
“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.)
The foregoing statute providing for signs and traffic-control devices is not a part of CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.121) providing for liability nor is it incorporated therein by reference or otherwise. Absent liability based upon reference, and with failure of the legislature to create liability on the part of the county for its failure to place signs or traffic-control devices on its highways in the act itself, no liability can be imposed. CLS 1961, § 257.610 subd (a) (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2310 subd[a]) does not mandatorily require a county road commission to place traffic-control signs or de*389vices oil highways under its jurisdiction. Although it may be advisable for a county road commission to “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” in its efforts to reduce the number of traffic accidents occurring on its highways and to effectively defend lawsuits claiming failure on its part to meet the duties imposed upon it by virtue of CLS 1961, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.121) such action is not required. (Emphasis supplied.)
Arguendo, the defendant county herein may have avoided possible liability for the claimed faulty construction and maintenance of Mortenview road, a terminating highway, by simply determining the need for and erecting a traffic-control sign or device, e.g., a stop sign, at the intersection so that all vehicles using Mortenview road would have been required to stop before turning onto the intersecting highway. Had such a stop sign been placed and maintained at the terminating point of Mortenview road, the possibility of a lawsuit against the defendant county herein would have been negligible.
The failure of the county road commission to place and maintain a proper traffic-control sign or device may deprive defendant of a possible defense but such failure does not grant plaintiff a cause of action under the laiv.
The summary judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant should be affirmed. No costs, a public question being involved.

 PA 1893, No 149,

 Present law is identical to that determined herein by reason of PA 1964, No 170, effective July 1, 1965, whieh was enacted for the purpose of making “uniform the liability of municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and the State, its agencies and departments, when engaged in a governmental function, for injuries to property and persons caused by negligence; to define and limit such liability; to define and limit the liability of the State when engaged in a proprietary function.” It provides in relevant part as follows:
“Except as in this act otherwise provided, all governmental agencies shall be immune from tort liability in all eases wherein said governmental agency is engaged in the exereise and discharge of a governmental function. Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the State from tort liability as it existed heretofore, which immunity is hereby affirmed.” PA 1964, No 170, § 7; MCLA § 691.1407 (Stat Ann 1968 Gum Supp § 3.996[107]).
“Each governmental agency having jurisdiction over any highway shall maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for publie travel. Any person sustaining bodily injury or damage to his property by reason of failure of any governmental agency to keep any highway under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair, and in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel, may recover the damages suffered by him from such governmental ageney. The liability, procedure and remedy as to county roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission shall be as provided in section 21, chapter 4 of Act No 283 of the Public Acts of 1909, as amended, being CL 1948, § 224.21 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.121). The duty of the State and the county road commissions to repair and maintain highways, and the liability therefor, shall extend only to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel and shall not include sidewalks, crosswalks or any other installation outside of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel. No action shall be brought against the State under this section except for injury or loss suffered on or after July 1, 1965. Any judgment against the State based on a claim arising under this section from aets or omissions of the State highway department shall be payable only from restricted funds appropriated to the State highway department or funds provided by its insurer.” PA 1964, No 170, § 2; MCLA § 691.1402 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 3.996[102]).