Lead Opinion
Plаintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s June 5, 1990, order granting defendant’s motion for summary disрosition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10).
This case arises out of an accident that opcurred оn April 30, 1988, at 1:00 a.m., on Armada Center Road in Macomb County after the plaintiff’s vehicle stalled and he moved it partially off the road surface and to the right side of the road. Plaintiff was unable to move his vehicle entirely off the road because that portion of Armаda Center Road lacks a shoulder and runs next to a deep ditch. Another motorist stoрped to offer assistance, pulling directly in front of plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff was standing betweеn the two vehicles when his car was struck from behind by a third vehicle, causing him serious injuries.
Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition for defendant. Specifically, plaintiff argues that defendant’s
This case involves the highway exception to governmental immunity. MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102). The relevant portion of § 2 provides:
Each governmental agency having jurisdiction ovеr any highway shall maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe аnd convenient for public travel. . . . The duty of the state and the county road commissions tо repair and maintain highways, and the liability therefor, shall extend only to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel and shall not include sidewalks, crosswalks or аny other installation outside of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehiculаr travel.
The highway exception waives the absolute immunity of governmental units with regard to dеfective highways under their jurisdiction. Scheurman v Dep’t of Transportation,
Plaintiff also clаims that the bank for the ditch parallel to Armada Center Road was excessively steеp and prevented him from moving his vehicle entirely off the road surface. However, wе have previously held that county road commissions cannot be held liable under § 2 for injuries caused by roadside ditches. Hutchinson v Allegan Co Bd of Rd Comm’rs (On Remand),
Lastly, plaintiff claims that defendant breached its duty to maintain reasonably safe roadways by failing to post speed-limit signs along the stretch of Aramada Center Road where the accident occurred. The trial court did not address this issue when granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Therefore, we remand this matter to the triаl court for a determination whether defendant breached its duty to maintain reasonаbly safe roadways by allegedly failing to post speed-limit signs along the relevant portion of Armada Center Road. The trial court should consider Salvati v Dep’t of State Hwys,
Affirmed in part and remanded to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting in part.) I concur with the majority in evеry respect except I would affirm the decision of the trial court in its entirety. I would not rеmand to the trial court for a determination whether defendant breached its "duty to pоst speed-limit signs along the relevant portions of Armada Center Road.” The Michigan Supreme Court, in its most recent consideration of the issue, narrowly interpreted MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102) to extend liability to the state and county road commissions only for "the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel.” Scheurman v Dep’t of Transportation,