Yono v. Department of Transportation
299 Mich. App. 102
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- In July 2011, Yono injured her ankle on M-22 in Suttons Bay after stepping into a depression near the parallel parking area and fell.
- Yono sued the Department in November 2011, alleging failure to keep M-22 in reasonable repair under MCL 691.1402(1).
- The Department moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing governmental immunity and that only travel lanes are within the highway exception.
- The Department’s expert claimed the travel lanes are the first 11 feet on each side of the center line, totaling 22 feet, and that the parking area was not designed for vehicular travel.
- Yono attached her expert affidavit contending the entire paved surface is travel lanes and that parallel parking lanes are designed for vehicular travel; the trial court concluded the parking area is designed for vehicular travel and denied summary disposition in February 2012.
- The Department appealed, contending the parking lanes are not designed for travel; the court affirmed, holding the parallel parking area is part of the improved portion designed for vehicular travel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parallel parking area is part of the improved portion designed for vehicular travel. | Yono: parking area designed for travel; Nawrocki supports liability. | Department: only travel lanes are designed for vehicular travel; parking areas are not protective. | The area is designed for vehicular travel; not immune. |
| Proper interpretation of 'designed for vehicular travel' under MCL 691.1402(1). | Nawrocki broadens the duty to travel portions adjacent to the traveled roadbed. | Grimes narrows travel to the specific lanes designed for travel; shoulders not designed for travel. | Court adopts design-based interpretation; parking area can be within 'designed for vehicular travel.' |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the highway exception to the facts, and whether the Department abandoned the issue. | Complaint sufficiently pled the highway exception; department argued broader interpretation. | Department abandoned the issue; and the facts support application of the highway exception. | Complaint adequately alleged the highway exception; department abandoned the issue on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nawrocki v. Macomb Co. Rd. Comm., 463 Mich. 143 (2000) (narrowly defines 'improved portion designed for vehicular travel' for pedestrians and others)
- Grimes v. Dep't of Transp., 475 Mich. 72 (2006) (defines 'designed for vehicular travel' and rejects broad travel interpretation)
- Scheurman v. Dep't of Transp., 434 Mich. 619 (1990) (examines roadbed design vs. contemplated use in highway immunity)
- Ford Motor Co. v. City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich. 425 (2006) (illustrates narrow construction of highway exception)
- McLean v. McElhaney, 289 Mich. App. 592 (2010) (pleading sufficiency in highway exception context)
- Barnard Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc., 285 Mich. App. 362 (2009) (de novo review of summary disposition on statutory interpretation)