Snead v. John Carlo, Inc.
294 Mich. App. 343
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff drove eastbound on I-94 and entered the exit lane for westbound M-59/Hall Road, striking a large construction hole in the exit-lane roadbed.
- MDOT argued immunity under the GTLA and that the highway exception did not apply because the area was not open for travel or properly within the highway’s traveled portion.
- Crash reports show four vehicles, including plaintiff’s, hit the hole within a short time window, with notes about a confusing closure setup.
- Evidence included barricades, barrels, and driver testimony indicating confusion about whether the exit area was closed.
- The trial court denied MDOT’s summary-disposition motion and granted partial summary disposition to plaintiff on the immunity issue, reasoning that the highway exception could apply.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of MDOT’s summary disposition but reversed the partial grant of immunity on the highway-exception issue, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the highway exception applies to MDOT | Nawrocki-style analysis favors exception | The area was not open for travel; exception does not apply | No, issue resolved for trial; fact-bound open/closed question remains |
| Whether the exit lane was open or closed to traffic at the time of the accident | Barriers/signage were incused and open travel possible | Exit was effectively closed; immunity could apply | Genuine issue of material fact; trial needed to determine openness |
| Whether the construction hole in the exit lane is within the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel | Hole proximate cause; located in roadbed designed for travel | Issues with traffic-control devices, not roadbed | Hole was in the roadbed designed for travel; highway-exception consideration warranted |
| Whether MDOT’s duty to maintain highways is suspended when a highway is effectively closed due to construction | Closure signals and maintenance duties are unsettled; immunity may be suspended | If closed, immunity could apply; otherwise not | Resolution depends on whether road was effectively closed; factual question for trier of fact |
| Whether traffic-control devices can render the highway open or closed in the open-travel analysis | Devices contribute to open-travel determination | Open/closed status controlled by actual road condition, not devices alone | Devices are relevant but not dispositive; factual determination needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143 (2000) ((highway exception excludes points of hazard outside roadbed for travel))
- Grimes v Dep’t of Transp, 475 Mich 72 (2006) ((shoulder not part of traveled portion; limits highway exception))
- Grounds v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 204 Mich App 453 (1994) ((road closures suspend highway-exception duty))
- Pusakulich v City of Ironwood, 247 Mich App 80 (2001) ((temporary closure removes adjacent sidewalk from highway exception))