Court Opinion

ID: 9855832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:31:52.247364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:12.434684
License: Public Domain

*655Weaver, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in pari). I concur in Suttles and I agree with the result in Brown. I write separately because I disagree with the lead opinion’s holding in Brown that neither the state nor a county owes a duty to a pedestrian while the pedestrian is in a crosswalk.
I continue to agree with Justice Riley’s dissent in Pick v Szymczak, 451 Mich 607, 632-656; 548 NW2d 603 (1996), which held that the highway exception statute does not impose a duty to repair defects in design or construction. Because I believe that the state or county is bound to fix a design or construction defect only when that defect would leave the physical surface of the road in disrepair and therefore unsafe, I would hold that the plaintiff in Brown did not plead a claim that avoids governmental immunity. Nonetheless, I agree with Justice Cavanagh’s opinion in Brown that when a plaintiff’s injury occurs in a crosswalk, but the plaintiff alleges that the defect was in the improved portion of the highway, the plaintiffs claim should go forward.