Thе cause of action arises out of a motor vehicle accident which took place on a state highway оn July 14, 1970. A notice of intent to file a claim (as required at that time) was timely filed with the Court of Claims. The actual claim or complаint itself was not filed in the Court of Claims until September 8, 1972. On October 27, 1972, the Court of Claims granted defendant’s motion for an accelerаted judgment because of the plaintiffs’ failure to file said claim within two years of the occurrence of the accidеnt, as required by MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111). Plaintiffs appeal to this Court contending that the statute is unconstitutional and in violation of the equal protection provisions of the Federal and state constitutions and further contending that defendant should be subject to the general three-year statute of limitation.
Plaintiffs argue on appeal that it was impossible to ascertain which limitational periоd was applicable to the case at bar. MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111) provides:
"(1) Every claim against any governmental agency shall be subject to the general law respecting limitations of actions except as otherwise provided in this section.
*399 "(2) The period of limitations for claims arising under section 2 of this act shall be 2 years.
"(3) The period of limitations for all claims against the statе, except those arising under section 2 of this act, shall be governed by chapter 64 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961.”
MCLA 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102) provides in substantive part as follows at § 2:
"Each governmental agency having jurisdiction over any highway shall maintain the highway in reasonablе repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. Any person sustaining bodily injury or damage to his property by reason of failure of any governmental agency to keep any highway under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair, аnd in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel, may recover the damages suffered by him from such governmental agency.”
Althоugh there are numerous notice and limitation requirements in the statutes which plaintiff claims cannot be followed easily by evеn a skilled practitioner, where the language of the statute is plain we are left no room for judicial construction.
Hughes v Detroit,
Plаintiffs’ second contention on appeal is that the two-year limitational period is arbitrary and an unreasonable classification and therefore violative of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Reich v State Highway Department,
386 Mich.617;
*400
The "rational basis” test appliеs when the law allegedly infringing equal protection creates no fundamental rights. Plaintiffs’ claim falls within this class and if a reasonable relation exists between the classification and some legitimate state interest, no denial of equal protection results.
Wilkins v Ann Arbor City Clerk,
" 'Although no precise formula has been developed, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others. The constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in prаctice, their laws result in some inequality. A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.’ McGowan v Maryland,366 US 420 ; 81 S Ct 1101;6 L Ed 2d 393 (1961).”
A party who assails a classification on the ground that it is in violation of the equal protection of the law has a heavy burden of showing that the classification has no reasonable basis. In
Kriger v South Oakland County Mutual Aid Pact, supra,
the following rule from
Wood v Jackson County,
" 'It is a general rule that equal proteсtion of the laws is not denied by a course of procedure which is *401 applied to legal proceedings in which a pаrticular person is affected, if such a course would also be applied to any other person in the state under similar circumstances and conditions. Equal protection of the laws of a state is extended to persons within its jurisdiction, within the meаning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, when its courts are open to them on the same condition as to others in like circumstances, with like rules of evidence and modes of procedure, for the security of their persons and рroperty, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts.’ 16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, § 533, p 923.”
Plaintiffs have nоt sustained the heavy burden of showing that the two-year limitational period found in MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111) is . a denial of the equal protection of thе laws. The provision applies to each and every person who may have been injured by a defective public highway and, as such, does not discriminate against any group or classification of people. In
Reich v State Highway Department,
*402
Plaintiffs had two years from the occurrence of the accident in which to file a claim and commence an action against the state. Failure to act upon the part of the plaintiffs within the statutory time period forecloses the right of action.
Yarger v City of Hastings,
Affirmed.
Notes
A similar argument was made in
Carver v McKernan,
"At the onset, we acknowledge frankly that statutes which limit access to the courts by people seeking redress for wrongs are nоt looked upon with favor by us. We acquiesce in the enforcement of statutes of limitation when we are not persuaded that they unduly restrict such access, but we look askance at devices such as notice *400 requirements which have the effect of shortening the period of time set forth in such statutes.” Carver, supra, at 99;211 NW2d at 26 .
See, generally, Carver, supra, footnote 1.