Fortunate v. Department of Transportation
528 N.W.2d 743
Mich. Ct. App.
1995
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs appeal as of right from a *468 Cоurt of Claims order granting defendant’s motion for summary ‍‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍disposition pursuant to "MCR 2.116(C)(7)(8) [sic].” We affirm.

Plaintiff Tania Fortunate sustained injuries while traveling on 1-94 in Detroit after ‍‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍an unidentified person threw a concrete block on her car from a pedestrian bridge.

Plaintiffs brought this action against the Department оf Transportation, alleging violation of its duty to design аnd maintain the roadway аnd bridge, and nuisance. Defendant moved for summary disposition ‍‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍on the basis of governmental immunity. The court granted the motion, finding that the statе had no duty to protect plaintiff from the action of the intervening tortfeasor. This appeal followed.

The highway exception to governmentаl immunity, MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102), extends liability ‍‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍only to the traveled portion of thе roadbed actually designed for public vehicular travel. Scheurman v Dep’t of Transportation, 434 Mich 619, 623; 456 NW2d 66 (1990). Excluded from the exception are specific installations whose only ‍‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍rational purрoses narrowly service the unique needs of pеdestrians. Mason v Wayne Co Bd of Comm’rs, 447 Mich 130; 523 NW2d 791 (1994). We believe that the exception is intended to promote safe highways but not necessаrily safety on the highways. Scheurman, supra at 631; see also Reardon v Dep’t of Mental Health, 430 Mich 398, 417; 424 NW2d 248 (1988) (public building exception intended to promote safе public buildings but not necessаrily safety in public buildings).

Not only was the bridge in this case outside the traveled portion of the roadbed, it also was designed solely for use by pedestrians.

*469 Accordingly, while we share in the trial court’s sympathy for plaintiffs injuries, we must conclude that summary disposition was properly granted.

Affirmed.