Yono v. Department of Transportation
499 Mich. 636
| Mich. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Helen Yono parked in a marked parallel-parking space on the northbound side of M-22 maintained by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT); she stepped into a depression in the parking area, fell, and was injured.
- Yono sued in the Court of Claims alleging MDOT breached its statutory duty to maintain the "improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel" under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), MCL 691.1402(1).
- MDOT moved for summary disposition asserting governmental immunity because the parallel‑parking lane was not "designed for vehicular travel." Experts for both sides submitted affidavits on highway design.
- The Court of Claims denied MDOT’s motion; the Court of Appeals (majority) affirmed, concluding the parking lane was part of the highway designed for vehicular travel; a dissent disagreed.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave, considered precedent (notably Grimes and Nawrocki), and held that a lane designated for parallel parking by paint markings is not, as a matter of law, "designed for vehicular travel" for purposes of the highway exception, reversing and remanding for summary disposition for MDOT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a marked parallel‑parking lane is within the GTLA highway exception as part of the "improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel." | Yono: the entire paved roadway (curb to curb) was designed for vehicular travel; ingress/egress and occasional travel in the parking lane show it was designed to support vehicle movement. | MDOT: the parking lane was designated for parking by paint/traffic-control devices and is not a travel lane; thus, GTLA's highway exception does not apply and MDOT is immune. | Held for MDOT: a marked parallel‑parking lane is not "designed for vehicular travel" under MCL 691.1402(1); exception construed narrowly, so governmental immunity applies. |
| Whether paint markings and traffic‑control devices can indicate how the highway is "designed" at the time of injury. | Yono: markings do not change the underlying design; the roadbed supports travel across its width. | MDOT: markings and MUTCD guidance are relevant and can redesignate the highway’s intended use at the time of injury. | Held: markings and traffic‑control devices are relevant evidence of a highway’s design at the time of injury and can show the area was designated for parking, not travel. |
| Whether the Grimes decision (shoulder not "designed for vehicular travel") controls or is distinguishable. | Yono: parking lane differs from a shoulder because parking is an intended, regular use and part of a vehicle’s route. | MDOT: Grimes forbids conflating possible/brief vehicular use with design; momentary ingress/egress does not convert parking lane into travel lane. | Held: Grimes governs the principle that incidental or momentary movement (including ingress/egress) does not transform a non‑travel area into one "designed for vehicular travel." |
| Whether interpretation should consider highway design at initial construction only or at time of injury. | Yono: initial design can be probative and paint markings may not reflect original design. | MDOT: design must be assessed as of the time of injury; traffic‑control devices can redesignate use over time. | Held: court must consider the highway’s design at the time of the alleged injury; markings and current designations matter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nawrocki v. Macomb Co. Rd. Comm’n, 463 Mich 143 (2000) (held pedestrians can plead in avoidance of governmental immunity when the dangerous condition is located within the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel)
- Grimes v. Dep’t of Transp., 475 Mich 72 (2006) (held highway shoulders are not "designed for vehicular travel" and cautioned against equating possible or momentary vehicular use with design)
- Suttles v. Dep’t of Transp., 457 Mich 635 (1998) (statutory interpretation: "designed for vehicular travel" means intended for vehicular travel)
- Mason v. Wayne Co. Bd. of Comm’rs, 447 Mich 130 (1994) (discusses intent/meaning behind "designed for vehicular travel" language)