890 N.W.2d 680
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- On July 8, 2011, Streng lost control of her motorcycle on Highway 33 after hitting tar-like crack fill; she suffered bodily injuries and property damage.
- On September 2, 2011 (56 days later), Streng served a written “Notice of Intent” on the county clerk and the chairperson of the Mackinac County Board of Road Commissioners that described the accident location as “Highway 33 near the intersection of Camp A Road” and included the police report with a sketch showing the crash on a curve ~1,000 ft north of the intersection.
- A road commission foreman and the commission’s engineer/manager inspected the scene shortly after the crash, identified the curve from skid marks, and had Dura‑Patch applied to the site; the foreman testified there was no other similar curve on that stretch of road.
- Streng sued the Board on July 1, 2013 alleging highway-defect claims and a broad range of damages; defendant moved for summary disposition arguing inadequate notice/service under MCL 691.1404 and that recoverable damages are limited to bodily injury/property damage.
- The trial court denied summary disposition, concluding the highway-code notice provision (MCL 224.21) governed and that Streng’s notice and service were sufficient and that damages naturally flowing from bodily injury were recoverable; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which notice statute governs (GTLA MCL 691.1404 v. MCL 224.21)? | MCL 224.21 applies to county road commissions and its procedures govern. | GTLA (MCL 691.1404) controls highway claims and its notice scheme applies. | MCL 224.21’s procedural requirements apply to county road commissions; courts should read GTLA liability provisions with MCL 224.21 procedures to avoid nullifying the specific statute. |
| Sufficiency of the notice (did notice properly describe location)? | Streng: notice (with police report/sketch) substantially set forth time/place and enabled investigation. | Board: description was imprecise (location ~1.07 miles north) and failed to specify exact location. | Notice was sufficient under MCL 224.21; the sketch and facts enabled identification of the curve and investigation (substantial compliance). |
| Sufficiency of service (who is “the clerk” to be served)? | Streng: "the clerk" refers to the county clerk and she properly served both county clerk and chairperson. | Board: "the clerk" means clerk of the board of county road commissioners (not county clerk). | "The clerk" refers to the county clerk under the statute and legislative history; in any event Streng properly served the required officials. |
| Scope of recoverable damages (limited to bodily injury/property damage?) | Streng: may recover all damages that naturally flow from bodily injury (including noneconomic and lost earnings). | Board: MCL 691.1402 permits only recovery for bodily injury or property damage (narrow damages). | Following Hannay, damages that naturally flow from a bodily injury are recoverable; plaintiff entitled to all damages naturally flowing from her injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Washtenaw Co. Rd. Comm’n, 477 Mich. 197 (2007) (rejected Hobbs/Brown line; emphasized MCL 691.1404 governs notice unless the specific statute requires otherwise)
- Brown v. Manistee Co. Rd. Comm’n, 452 Mich. 354 (1996) (held 60‑day notice unconstitutional; applied GTLA notice period)
- Hannay v. Dep’t of Transp., 497 Mich. 45 (2014) (held "bodily injury" allows recovery of damages that naturally flow from physical injury)
- Robinson v. Lansing, 486 Mich. 1 (2010) (statutory language used repeatedly should be given consistent meaning)
- Overton v. Detroit, 339 Mich. 650 (1954) (notice must describe place sufficiently to enable identification)
- Pearll v. Bay City, 174 Mich. 643 (1913) (substantial compliance with place/time notice requirement is sufficient)