Court Opinion

ID: 9503804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:49:06.597249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:44.300259
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(dissenting).
*1261I would affirm the lower courts’ denials of defendant’s motion for summary disposition. As I noted in my dissent in Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm,1 the second sentence of the highway exception2
imposes liability on a government agency having jurisdiction over a highway for failure “to keep a highway under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel . . . .” Thus, liability not only extends to highways in a state of disrepair, but to those in a condition not reasonably safe and fit for travel.[3]
The city of Lansing in this case plowed snow over a city sidewalk, impeding foot travel on it. Hence, a question of fact exists whether the city failed to keep the sidewalk in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel. Therefore, I concur with part III(C) of Justice Weaver’s dissenting statement.

 Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143 (2000).

 MCL 691.1402(1).

3 Nawrocki, 463 Mich at 192 (Kelly, J. dissenting).