*1 347 Co v St Clair Rd Mann CLAIR ROAD COMMISSION MANNv ST COUNTY (Calendar 8). January 14, Argued Decided No. No. 122845. Docket 30, June 2004. Mann, individually Mann, Sr., Gayle the and as next and Patrick Jr., minor, brought Mann, an in the a action St. friend Patrick Commission, County against St. Road Clair Circuit Corut the Clair seeking damages injuries accident sustained in a vehicle paved allegedly by drop edge a the surface of a caused at court, roadway. Deegan, J., denied defendant’s E. the The Peter cap ruling damages in reduction the motion in limine for the 257.710e(6), apply, safety statute, so would not belt use MCL percent cap damages be than the the could reduced five more Appeals, negligence. comparative The under common-law Court J., PJ., dissenting), affirmed on (Markey, Hood, Murphy, concluding application interlocutory appeal, the that the of Vehicle cap damage does result in a violation of the Code reduction not 1963, 4, Title-Object § 24. Mich Clause of Const art appealed. The defendant joined by opinion In Chief Justice an Justice Weaver, Supreme the and Justices Young, Corrigan, Taylor Makkman, Court held: statute, reduction the use MCL act, 257.710e(6), applies only cases no-fault alleging seq., apply not in a suit civil MCL500.3101et and does exception county under the road commission 691.1402(1). immunity, governmental entry court of an and remanded to circuit Reversed granting order the defendant’s motion. joined dissenting, by Justice stated Justice Kelly, Cavanagh, 257.701e(6), percent cap in MCL that the five law, apply brought under the use should to a suit immunity, only to highway exception not cases legislative act. initial intent under the no-fault public was and to belt use law to foster behind comparative damage awards based on a motorist’s limit attacks on changes failing Subsequent belt. wear change Applying legislative initial intent. the law do not Opinion 470 MICH Court Legislature’s to no-fault cases defies intent and reads into the statute limitation written there. Negligence Damages — — —Cap Code Vehicle Reduction Governmental Highway — Immunity Exception. *2 cap the reduction belt use statute of the Michigan apply alleging Vehicle not a Code does suit civil liability county highway exception of a road commission the (MCL 691.1402[1]). governmental immunity 257.710e[6], to Moss) Colella, (Sommers,
Moss & EC. (by David M. Schwartz, Schwartz, EC., Silver & Burkett, Eatrick counsel), plaintiffs. for the
Smith Haughey
(by
Rice &
Jon
Roegge
D. Vander
Henn)
and William L.
Floeg
the defendant.
J. The sole
issue before the Court is whether
WEAVER,
the safety belt use
statute’s
on the reduction of
damages,
257.710e(6),
MCL
when
suit
is
brought against a county road commission under the
highway exception
governmental
to
immunity.
257.710e(6) provides
that a
damages arising
out of the ownership, maintenance,
motor vehicle can
be reduced
no more than five
percent
of plaintiffs
because
a
failure to
wear a
adopt
belt. We
Justice BOYLE’s concurrence in Klinke v
Mitsubishi Motors Corp, 458 Mich
Patrick Mann, minor, Jr., as next of Patrick friend by roadway that the accident was caused suit, alleging defendant, county road com- and that “edge drop,” gov- mission, exception is liable under the *3 roadway failing keep for to immunity ernmental at to offer trial Defendant seeks repair.1 reasonable expert the vehicle testimony of a biomechanical wearing safety belts at were not occupants (plaintiffs) they have time the accident and that would they minor, superficial injuries had been escaped with wearing safety belts. limine, trial, brought a motion in
Before
defendant
holding that
court enter an order
asking that
circuit
of dam-
on the reduction
safety
cap
statute’s
belt
If
belt
257.710e(6),
ages,
apply.
MCL
does
plaintiffs’ negligence
then
cap
apply,
statute’s
were
reduce their
failing
a
belt could
wear
to have
sought
Defendant
percent.
no more than five
amount
reduced more than that
plaintiffs’ damages
Following
comparative negligence.
under common-law
[1]
For
purposes
of tins
appeal,
we
accept plaintiffs’
allegations
as true.
350
Opinion op the Court argument limine, on defendant’s motion the trial court denied defendant’s motion. The trial court de- Klinke, clined to extend the beyond rationale a action, products liability and held that the statute’s on reduction does apply.
The Court of Appeals granted defendant’s applica-
interlocutory
tion
leave
an
appeal
affirmed.
(2002).
254 Mich App
ANALYSIS
The issue before
us whether the
belt stat-
ute’s
of damages,
reduction
MCL
257.710e(6), applies
a
against
county
road
commission
under the highway exception to
immunity, MCL 691.1402. This case pre-
sents a question of statutory interpretation, which is
reviewed
Co, Inc,
de novo. Stozicki v Allied
Paper
(2001).
257, 263;
Mich
Two the common that under held action, this Court could be safety a to wear failure law negligence. comparative purposes at trial for used Ltd, Mich 410 NW2d Motors Lowe v Estate the effec- before accident occurred In Lowe the decision was the Court’s 257.710e, and date of MCL tive on the statute. not based alternative there are two result, in a tort suit
As a to use a of the failure admitting evidence grounds common-law safety belt statute safety belt—the be- difference primary negligence.2 comparative to use of the failure evidence the two is that when tween statute, safety belt under the admitted belt is damages; the reduction of percent cap there a five safety belt is to use a of the failure evidence when negligence, comparative common-law admitted under apply. do not belt statute B belt statute’s here is whether question 257.710e(6), MCL damages, the reduction cap on exception brought under 691.1402. immunity, MCL governmental case, plaintiffs’ to wear belts failure if the evidence In this statute, admitted it would be admitted under were not comparative negligence. purpose for the under the common law immunity provides “[c]laims act 691.1412 of to claims subject the defenses available to all of this act are against private persons.” sounding in tort *5 352 347
Opinion of Court The safety statute, 257.710e, belt MCL requires use of belts in an safety automobile. It allows evidence of the failure to use a belt to safety be admitted in court prove comparative negligence, while limiting the recovery damages arising reduction for of out of the or ownership, maintenance, operation aof motor ve percent: hicle to no more than five Failure to wear a in violation of this section may negligence may be considered evidence of reduce recovery damages arising for ownership, out of the maintenance, or of However, a motor vehicle. such recovery shall not reduce 257.710e(6).] percent. more than five [MCL We hold that statute’s on the reduction of tort applicable only to actions act, under the no-fault MCL 500.3101 et seq. 710e(6)
By terms, § its own is limited to “damages maintenance, out of the ownership, or operation of a motor vehicle.” A loss involving the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle is a “motor vehicle accident” under the no-fault act.4 Tort liability arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle Michigan within 257.710e(3) MCL states: passenger Each driver front seat of a motor vehicle operated street properly on a or in this state shall awear adjusted belt, except and fastened that a child less than 4 years age protected required shall be as 710d. If section there passengers use, are more than belts available for and all being compliance belts in the motor are vehicle utilized section, compliance with this the driver of the motor vehicle is
with this section. 500.3101(2)(f) provides: MCL involving “Motor accident” vehicle means loss operation, maintenance, or use a motor as a vehicle Rd v Clair Co Mann St Opinion of the Court abolished, allowing exceptions certain has been .5 500.3135(3) Thus, on reduction of MCL within safety belt, 710e(6), § can damages for failure to wear limited tort allowed under in those suits apply regardless involves the the accident also own- vehicle whether maintenance, motorcycle operation, or use as a ership, motorcycle. occurring after to motor vehicle accidents The no-fault act 1, October 1973. 500.3179. *6 500.3135(3)provides: (3) law, Notwithstanding provision liability any tort other of maintenance, use within state from the or security required by respect with to which the motor vehicle except in to: section 3101 was effect is abolished as (a) persons property. Intentionally to or Even caused harm property though person persons that harm to or is knows omission, by substantially his or or the certain to caused her act be intentionally person if he cause or that harm or she does not suffer averting purpose injury acting the to acts from of or refrains herself, any including purpose person, for the himself or damage property. averting tangible (b) Damages provided loss as and limited in for noneconomic (1) (2). and subsections (c) loss, Damages expenses, and work survivor’s allowable daily, in to 3110 excess of the loss as defined sections 3107 in monthly, 3-year contained in those sections. The limitations damages reducing party exemption entitled to an his or liable for is payable have been her the amount of taxes would injured person have received if he on account of income the would injured. or she had not been (d) Damages in excess of the for economicloss nonresident provided personal protection benefits under section insurance 3163(4).Damages recoverable to the under this subdivision are not covering are available from that benefits the same loss extent sources, regardless of the nature or number benefit other regardless or form of the nature sources available benefits. Mich 347
Opinion of the Court .6 act no-fault As Justice BOYLEstated her concur Klinke, at safety- rence in fact that the supra “[t]he language belt statute tracks the no-fault act Legislature’s apply demonstrates the clear intent to on five-percent limitation reduction of for a damages plaintiffs negligence within the context of the no-fault act.” question this case is whether the belt cap on damages applies
statute’s the reduction of when brought against county road under commission highway exception immunity. We hold the plaintiffs that because suit was not act, belt the no-fault statute’s on 710e(6), damages, § the reduction of apply.7 does not (e) Damages vehicles, up $500.00 to the extent that are not An covered insurance. action for pursuant compliance to this shall subdivision be conducted with subsection 6 Contrary assertion, holding solely to the dissent’s our is not based similarity language in the statute and the no-fault act. Rather, explained above, recognize as we terms of the applicability limit its statute to motor vehicle accidents under the Thus, no-fault act. tort suits to which belt statute will apply are those allowed under the no-fault act. *7 7 cap only applies arising we Because conclude that to cases act, the no-fault and that since this not case does arise under the no-fault cap act damages the on the statute’s reduction of does not apply, application cap do not we address whether the of the in this case Title-Object would violate the Clause. analysis applied Appeals But we note that in of the Court the wrong Title-Object test to determine whether the Clause was violated. Appeals panel applying The of Court reasoned that the in highway scope a suit for a defective did not the violate of the title of the Vehicle is a Code because “there natural correlation or connection governmental liability failing highway between to maintain a repair Code, Michigan governs and reasonable the Vehicle which the operation public highways.” vehicles same on those 254 Mich 99. Co Rd Mann v St Clair Opinion op Court the
c
the reduction
cap on
belt statute’s
The
the
case because
in this
inapplicable
is also
damages
arose out of
damages
their
allege that
do not
plaintiffs
of a motor
maintenance,
operation
or
“ownership,
the
and
that the accident
Rather,
allege
plaintiffs
vehicle.”
drop,”
roadway “edge
aby
caused
damages were
their
excep-
is liable under
and that defendant
keep
immunity
failing
governmental
tion to
allege that their
Plaintiffs
repair.
roadway
reasonable
roadway
keep
from the failure
damages arose
mainte-
not from
repair,
reasonable
of a motor vehicle.
nance,
operation
held that
panel
of Appeals
the Court
opinion,
In its
damages
the reduction of
belt statute’s
highway exception
here, in a suit under
applied
did arise
damages
immunity, because
e.8
an
motor vehicl This is
of a
operation
out of
determining
the Title-
proper
whether a statute violates
test for
“subjects
in their nature and
Object
diverse
is whether it contains
Clause
Mahaney,
connection,”
having
necessary
People
Drake v
13Mich
exrel
no
Park,
675, 691;
481, 494-495(1865),
City
Allen
Pohutski v
(2002),
“natural correlation or
there is a
not whether
NW2d
connection.”
opinion
Appeals
stated:
The Court of
710e(6)
“liability”
provide
must arise
not
that
Subsection
does
vehicle,
“damages”
operation
but rather that
of a motor
out
710e(6)
arise,
provide
subsection
does
must so
party’s
operation
particular
damages
of a
arise out of the
must
vehicle,
only
arise out of
that the
but rather
Therefore,
language of
operation
the clear
a motor vehicle.
710e(6)
plaintiffs
required
suffered
subsection
alleged
If
operation
as
here.
of a motor vehicle
out of the
vehicle,
operating
there would not
a motor
had not been
accident,
damages.
injuries,
been an
have
plaintiffs’
necessary component giving rise to
motor vehicle was a
*8
356
This Court has construed almost identical language,
liability
“tort
arising from the ownership, maintenance,
or use within this state of a
vehicle,”
as referring
caused
ownership, maintenance, or
use of a motor vehicle. Citizens Ins Co America v
Tuttle,
536, 544;
Mich
This interpretation inis accord with the Court of Appeals decision Klinke v Mitsubishi Motors Corp, 219 Mich App (1996), NW2d 528 written by Judge MARKMAN, and with Justice BOYLE’s concurring opinion in Klinke, 5, 458 Mich n which recognized there “[t]he damages ‘arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or operation of a motor ve- hicle’ this litigation are the damages caused plaintiffs fault. To the extent that plaintiffs damages were caused a product defect, they do not arise out of ‘ownership, maintenance, or operation.’ Thus, the five- percent cap would not apply.”
In Klinke the Court of Appeals concluded that percent five cap on the reduction of damages for failure to wear a safety belt found in the Vehicle Code does not apply to products liability against actions automobile “[B]y manufacturers. plain meaning, provision is expressly limited to damages arising out of the action, cause of and there was a nexus between their operation 86,103; [254 motor vehicle. 657 NW2d (2002).] Rd Clair Co Mann v St Opinion op the Court of a motor ve- maintenance or ” *9 absent “Conspicuously 509. hicle.’ 219 of a motor or construction design reference to any of the interpretation liberal Even the most vehicle. and ‘opera- maintenance’ ‘ownership,’ ‘common words and design to include enough cannot stretch far tion’ Id., Corp, v Motors quoting LaHue Gen construction.” 1989). (WD Mo, F Supp Likewise, interpretation the most liberal even maintenance,” “op- and “ownership,” “common words to include mainte- enough cannot stretch far eration” attempting of a Plaintiffs here are highway. nance road arising out of the commission’s damages recover attempt- are not highway; they to maintain the failure out of “the ing damages to recover vehicle.” In other maintenance, or of a motor “op- words, seeking damages are not rather, are vehicle”; they seeking eration of a motor failure to maintain for the road commission’s and fit for reasonably in a condition safe highway travel. the civil is based on plaintiffs’
Because suit for its mainte- county road commission cap on highway, nance of a belt statute’s apply. reduction of does not
CONCLUSION
motion
denying
defendant’s
The trial court erred
percent
five
preclude application
in limine to
257.710e(6).
We reverse
damage
reduction
court,
and the trial
Appeals
of the Court of
the decisions
of an
entry
the trial court for
and remand the case to
motion, consistent with
defendant’s
granting
order
opinion.
Corrigan, C.J., Taylor, Markman, JJ., and WEAVER, concurred with J. I would find that (dissenting). five
KELLY, percent cap damage reduction for failure to wear one’s to a under the exception immunity. This my would be consistent with dissenting opinion in Klinke v Mitsubishi Motors 458 Mich Corp, NW2d 272
STATUTORYANALYSIS The safety provides: belt statute
Failure to awear belt in violation of this section may be may considered evidence of reduce *10 recovery damages arising ownership, out of the maintenance, operation However, or of a motor vehicle. such recovery damages shall not reduce the 257.710e(6).] [MCL more than 5%. majority that, The in holds an action pleaded in avoidance immunity premised on the highway exception, plaintiffs damages do not “arise out of the maintenance, ownership, operation or of a motor vehicle.” It bases this conclusion on the fact that Legislature used similar language the no-fault act.1 That act provides pertinent part: majority holding solely maintains that is not based on the similarity language in the belt statute and the no-fault act. It insists instead that “the terms of the belt statute limit its applicability to motor vehicle accidents under the no-fault act.” Ante at However, 354 n 6. belt statute makes no reference to the Therefore, despite contrary, majority no-fault act. its assertion to the solely Legislature bases this conclusion on the fact that the used similar language in the no-fault act. Mann v St Clair Co Rd Dissenting Opinion Kelly, law,
Notwithstanding any provision liabil- other tort maintenance, ity arising ownership, or use within from the [MCL a motor is abolished.... this state of vehicle... 500.3135(3).] of the two
Although similarity language exists statutes, taken to deceptive it is and should not be Legislature indicate that the intended identical results comparison when them. A of the two reveals applying they Legis- that are not identical. The difference in the language telling. lature’s choice of “liability arising no-fault act refers to from maintenance, ownership, or use... of motor ve- . ...” The safety “damages hicle law refers to maintenance, operation out of the Here, plaintiffs’ damages of motor vehicle.” arose out the operation majority of the vehicle. The maintains plaintiffs seeking damages opera- that are not “for” the However, tion of a motor vehicle. Ante at 357. that definition, By misconstrues the belt statute. liability arising from an act and the damages caused it are not identical. I agree Appeals with the Court of analysis: 257.710e(6)] “liability” provide
[MCL
does not
that
vehicle,
operation
must arise out of the
of a motor
but
“damages”
arise,
rather
that
must so
and subsection
710e(6)
provide
damages
does not
must arise out of
vehicle,
operation
particular party’s
but
rather
that the
arise out of the
Therefore,
language
a motor
vehicle.
clear
of subsec-
710e(6) required only
tion
suffered
*11
operation
alleged
out of the
aof motor vehicle as
.
plaintiffs
operating
vehicle,
here. If
had not been
a motor
accident, injuries,
there would not have been an
damages.
necessary
The
of a motor vehicle was a
action,
component giving
plaintiffs’
rise to
cause of
opera-
there was a nexus between their
and the
The Legislature apparently concluded that limiting recovery for those who fail to wear safety belts would further goals. both The Court of Appeals agreed with this observation: Analysis regarding supporting argu- Bill
The Senate
ments for the 1985 amendment of MCL 257.710e indicated
that “seat belt use saves lives and reduces the number and
severity
injuries. Experience
mandatory
has shown that
App
254 Mich
103-104.
199 Mich
Thus, damage cap legal the more actions which the that the act will be. The fact more effective the applies, retroactively changed of has does the state the law safety belt passing intent in the Legislature’s alter statute. intent. legislative majority
The acts frustrate safety one’s language of belt statute reduces damages by Nothing suggests five percent. percent to reduce five Legislature wanted accident, limit one only in a two-car but set no where intent, of car was involved. Absent some indication such intended illogical Legislature it to conclude that the is failing from disparate negligence, results the same such wear a belt. if is For a motorist whose example, truck, his failure is hit a his to wear will reduced five percent be if, However, instead, the accident involves statute. majority’s interpreta- negligent bicyclist, applying much tion, experience a injured the same motorist could failing damage reduction for wear greater belt. care, Legislature enacted a standard of belts, penalty that carries a limited
wearing
majority
Legislature’s
violation. The
frustrates
finding a
indication
power by
intent and limits its
clear
to no-fault
applied only
intent
the statute be
statute
This
the fact that the
despite
cases.
CONCLUSION I would find that percent cap five on damages reduction for failure to wear a belt applies to a exception govern- mental immunity. apparent It is that the intent Legislature in passing act was twofold: to foster public safety and to limit attacks on damage awards based on a motorist’s comparative negligence in failing wear belt. Subsequent changes law cannot affect Legislature’s intent at the time was enacted. Applying no-fault cases defies the Legislature’s intent and reads into the statute a limitation not written there.
Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and of trial court.
CAVANAGH, J., KELLY, concurred with