Yono v. Department of Transportation
306 Mich. App. 671
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Helen Yono sued the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) after falling while walking to her parked car on a portion of M-22 where parking was permitted, alleging MDOT failed to maintain the ‘‘improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel’’ under the highway exception to governmental immunity (MCL 691.1402(1)).
- MDOT moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), submitting photos and an expert affidavit claiming the area was not designed for vehicular travel (arguing the duty extends only to main travel lanes).
- The trial court denied MDOT’s motion; a majority of the Court of Appeals panel affirmed, concluding the undisputed evidence supported that the parking area was designed for vehicular travel even if not a primary thoroughfare.
- The Michigan Supreme Court remanded asking this Court to (1) define the legal standard for when a highway portion is ‘‘designed for vehicular travel’’ for MCL 691.1402(1) and (2) determine whether Yono pled sufficient facts to create a genuine issue of material fact under that standard.
- On remand the Court (a) explained pleading and summary-disposition procedure under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (b) held Yono adequately pleaded in avoidance of governmental immunity, and (c) ruled MDOT failed to present admissible evidence that the area fell outside the improved portion designed for vehicular travel, so summary dismissal was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yono pleaded in avoidance of governmental immunity under the highway exception | Yono alleged the defect was in the improved portion of M-22 and that MDOT had exclusive jurisdiction and a duty to maintain it; this gave MDOT notice of the highway-exception claim | MDOT implied the complaint lacked the specific allegation that the defect was in the portion ‘‘designed for vehicular travel’’ | Held: Complaint met notice-pleading requirements; even if technically deficient, leave to amend would have been appropriate — pleading was sufficient |
| Standard for ‘‘designed for vehicular travel’’ under MCL 691.1402(1) | N/A (Court interprets statute) | MDOT urged a narrow reading: only central lanes used as thoroughfare are covered | Held: ‘‘Designed for vehicular travel’’ means improvements planned/purposed/intended to support vehicular movement (broadly including nonmotorized wheeled vehicles); not limited to sole main travel lanes, but confined to portions actually designed to support vehicle travel |
| Whether MDOT’s evidence (photos + expert affidavit) established entitlement to immunity as a matter of law | N/A | MDOT argued undisputed evidence showed the area (parking lanes/shoulder) was not designed for vehicular travel and thus outside the highway exception | Held: MDOT’s expert affidavit failed to show the actual design or the basis for conclusions; paint markings are not dispositive of design; MDOT did not meet its initial burden on a (C)(7) factual challenge |
| Proper procedure for (C)(7) motions asserting governmental immunity (fact challenge) | N/A | N/A | Held: A (C)(7) movant may rely on documentary or testimonial evidence to show entitlement to immunity; if movant meets initial burden, burden shifts to nonmovant to present evidence raising a factual dispute; here MDOT did not meet the initial burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Yono v. Dep’t of Transp., 299 Mich. App. 102 (Court of Appeals) (prior panel decision affirming denial of summary disposition)
- Nawrocki v. Macomb County Road Comm’r, 463 Mich. 143 (Supreme Court) (construing "improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel")
- Grimes v. Dep’t of Transp., 475 Mich. 72 (Supreme Court) (addressing whether shoulders are "designed for vehicular travel")
- Mack v. Detroit, 467 Mich. 186 (Supreme Court) (pleading in avoidance of governmental immunity requirement)
- Patterson v. Kleiman, 447 Mich. 429 (Supreme Court) (distinguishing (C)(7) facial challenges and evidentiary support)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (Supreme Court) (pleadings construed in the nonmovant's favor)
- Dextrom v. Wexford County, 287 Mich. App. 406 (Court of Appeals) (resolving factual disputes on (C)(7) government-immunity motions)
- Kincaid v. Cardwell, 300 Mich. App. 513 (Court of Appeals) (movant's initial burden on (C)(7) factual challenge)
- Ben P. Fyke & Sons v. Gunter Co., 390 Mich. 649 (Supreme Court) (leave to amend pleadings; liberal amendment policy)