Court Opinion

ID: 9851966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:22:23.300015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:20.579713
License: Public Domain

Coleman, J.
(concurring). We concur in Justice Moody’s opinion but write separately to state our belief that Reich v State Highway Department, 386 Mich 617; 194 NW2d 700 (1972), was wrongly decided. See the dissent in Hobbs v Department of State Highways, 398 Mich 90, 97, 102; 247 NW2d 754 (1976). In Hobbs, the dissent stated concerning a 120-day notice, that it
"does not unreasonably restrict the right to seek recovery. It insures that the state will have a fair chance to defend any action. It permits the state to conduct prompt investigation and determine what should be done. The Legislature has permitted suits where none are allowed as a right. The 120-day notice provision is a reasonable condition on that permission.”
As Justice Moody says, the two-year statute of limitations "affords plaintiffs a reasonable time *363within which to commence suit”. It "is neither arbitrary nor capricious”. It does not violate equal protection of the law.
Ryan, J., concurred with Coleman, J.