MCL § 691.1402 – Highway exception to governmental immunity
Table of Contents
Code Details
GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE (EXCERPT)
Act 170 of 1964
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
Sec. 2.
(1) Each governmental agency having jurisdiction over a highway shall maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. A person who sustains bodily injury or damage to his or her property by reason of failure of a governmental agency to keep a highway under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel may recover the damages suffered by him or her from the governmental agency. The liability, procedure, and remedy as to county roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission shall be as provided in section 21 of chapter IV of 1909 PA 283, MCL 224.21. Except as provided in section 2a, the duty of a governmental agency to repair and maintain highways, and the liability for that duty, extends only to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel and does not include sidewalks, trailways, crosswalks, or any other installation outside of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel. A judgment against the state based on a claim arising under this section from acts or omissions of the state transportation department is payable only from restricted funds appropriated to the state transportation department or funds provided by its insurer.
(2) A municipal corporation has no duty to repair or maintain, and is not liable for injuries or damages arising from, a portion of a county or state highway.
(3) If the state transportation department contracts with another governmental agency to perform work on a state trunk line highway, an action brought under this section for tort liability arising out of the performance of that work shall be brought only against the state transportation department under the same circumstances and to the same extent as if the work had been performed by employees of the state transportation department. The state transportation department has the same defenses to the action as it would have had if the work had been performed by its own employees. If an action described in this subsection could have been maintained against the state transportation department, it shall not be maintained against the governmental agency that performed the work for the state transportation department. The governmental agency also has the same defenses that could have been asserted by the state transportation department had the action been brought against the state transportation department.
(4) The contractual undertaking of a governmental agency to maintain a state trunk line highway confers contractual rights only on the state transportation department and does not confer third party beneficiary or other contractual rights in any other person to recover damages to person or property from that governmental agency. This subsection does not relieve the state transportation department of liability it may have, under this section, regarding that highway.
(5) The duty imposed by this section on a governmental agency is limited by sections 81131 and 82124 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.81131 and 324.82124.
MCL § 691.1402 Summary
This Michigan statute creates a crucial exception to the general rule of governmental immunity, allowing individuals to seek damages from governmental agencies for injuries or property damage caused by poorly maintained highways. It mandates that any governmental agency responsible for a highway must keep it in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for public travel. If an agency fails in this duty and someone is harmed as a direct result, that person can sue the agency for their losses. The statute explicitly limits this duty and potential liability to only the “improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel,” meaning it generally does not cover areas like sidewalks, trailways, or crosswalks. The law also includes specific provisions for county roads, clarifies that municipal corporations are not responsible for county or state highways, and outlines rules for liability when the state contracts out maintenance work on state trunk lines.
Purpose of MCL § 691.1402
The legislative intent behind this statute is to ensure public safety on Michigan’s roadways and to provide a mechanism for accountability when governmental negligence leads to harm. By establishing a clear duty for governmental agencies to maintain highways in a reasonably safe condition, the law addresses the critical need for reliable and safe infrastructure. Without this exception, individuals injured due to dangerous road conditions would have little recourse against the government entities responsible for those roads, effectively shielding negligent behavior. Thus, this statute balances the principle of governmental immunity with the public’s right to safety and the ability to seek redress for injuries caused by a failure to perform a fundamental public service. It encourages diligent maintenance by attaching liability to neglect, ultimately aiming to protect Michigan drivers and their property.
Real-World Example of MCL § 691.1402
Imagine a scenario where a large, deep pothole develops on a busy state highway in Michigan. Despite numerous complaints from local residents and commuters, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), the governmental agency with jurisdiction over this state highway, fails to repair the pothole for several weeks. One evening, a driver, Sarah, is traveling on this highway, does not see the pothole until it’s too late, and hits it with significant force. The impact causes her tire to blow out, she loses control of her vehicle, and crashes into a guardrail, sustaining serious injuries and extensive damage to her car.
Under MCL § 691.1402, Sarah could potentially file a personal injury lawsuit against MDOT. She would argue that MDOT failed in its statutory duty to maintain the improved portion of the highway in reasonable repair, making it not “reasonably safe and fit for public travel.” Her injuries and property damage were a direct result of this failure. The fact that the incident occurred on the “improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel” (the main driving lane) is crucial, as this statute would not apply if she had, for instance, tripped on a broken sidewalk next to the highway. This example illustrates how the statute provides a pathway for individuals to seek compensation when government negligence related to highway maintenance leads to harm.
Related Statutes
Several other Michigan statutes are directly related to MCL § 691.1402, either by explicit reference within the text or by governing the broader context of governmental liability and highway maintenance:
- MCL § 691.1407 – Governmental immunity from tort liability; exceptions generally: This is Michigan’s primary governmental immunity statute. MCL § 691.1402 is an *exception* to the broad immunity granted by MCL § 691.1407, meaning that while the government is generally immune from tort liability, it can be sued for highway defects under the specific conditions outlined in 691.1402.
- MCL § 224.21 – Board of county road commissioners; duty to keep roads in reasonable repair: Referenced directly in subsection (1) of MCL § 691.1402, this statute specifically outlines the liability, procedure, and remedies for claims involving county roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission. It details the specific requirements and processes for bringing claims against county road commissions.
- MCL § 691.1402a – Conditions for recovery for injuries or damage caused by defective highway: This section, explicitly mentioned in subsection (1) of MCL § 691.1402, establishes further conditions for recovery in highway defect cases. It often deals with requirements like notice to the governmental agency about the defect and the time frame within which the defect must have existed, potentially also touching upon the “open and obvious” doctrine as it applies to highways.
- MCL § 324.81131 – Natural resources and environmental protection act; limitations on liability for land use: Referenced in subsection (5) of MCL § 691.1402, this statute (and MCL 324.82124) from the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act limits the duty imposed by the highway exception in certain contexts. These sections generally provide immunity for certain activities on lands used for recreational purposes, such as trails, and could limit the governmental agency’s duty where a “highway” might overlap with such recreational areas.
- MCL § 324.82124 – Natural resources and environmental protection act; recreational trailways: Similarly referenced in subsection (5), this statute pertains to recreational trailways and the limited liability of agencies or landowners regarding injuries sustained on such trails, further defining the boundaries of the highway exception in specific environmental or recreational contexts.
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 691.1402
Michigan courts have frequently interpreted MCL § 691.1402, clarifying the scope and limitations of the highway exception to governmental immunity. Two pivotal cases that have significantly shaped its application include:
- *Evens v. Taylor Twp.*, 475 Mich 212 (2006): This Michigan Supreme Court case profoundly influenced the understanding of the phrase “improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel” in subsection (1). The Court held that this language specifically limits the governmental agency’s duty to the *roadway itself* and *does not include* shoulders, medians, or other areas adjacent to the paved surface. This ruling significantly narrowed the scope of governmental liability under the highway exception compared to prior interpretations, emphasizing that the duty pertains strictly to the part of the highway intended for vehicle movement. The full case information can be found by searching for Evens v Taylor Twp 475 Mich 212.
- *Plumb v. Michigan Dep’t of Transp.*, 321 Mich App 147 (2017): This Court of Appeals case provided guidance on the notice requirement often intertwined with highway defect claims. While not solely interpreting 691.1402 directly, it emphasizes the importance of the governmental agency having actual or constructive notice of a defect to be held liable. The case reiterates that the plaintiff must prove the agency knew or should have known about the hazardous condition and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time. This decision underscores the procedural hurdles a plaintiff must overcome to successfully bring a claim under the highway exception. A Google Scholar search for Plumb v Michigan Dep’t of Transp 321 Mich App 147 will provide details.
These cases, among many others, highlight the complex and often litigated nature of the highway exception, requiring careful consideration of the specific facts and legal precedents in each case.
Why MCL § 691.1402 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
MCL § 691.1402 is an indispensable statute in Michigan personal injury litigation because it represents one of the very few avenues for holding governmental entities accountable for negligence. Governmental agencies generally enjoy broad immunity from lawsuits, meaning that without specific exceptions like this one, individuals injured due to dangerous road conditions would typically have no legal recourse.
For plaintiffs, understanding this statute is paramount. It defines *when* and *how* they can sue a governmental agency for injuries sustained on a public highway. Crucially, it clarifies the scope of the government’s duty, limiting it to the “improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel.” This means that an injury occurring on a sidewalk, shoulder, or median due to a defect might not fall under this exception, severely impacting a plaintiff’s ability to recover. Plaintiffs and their attorneys must thoroughly investigate the exact location of the defect and whether it falls within the statute’s strict definition. Additionally, related statutes (like MCL 691.1402a) often impose stringent notice requirements and shorter statutes of limitations for claims against governmental entities, making timely legal action critical.
For defense attorneys representing governmental agencies, MCL § 691.1402 provides the boundaries of their client’s potential liability. They will scrutinize whether the alleged defect was indeed on the “vehicular travel” portion, whether their client had proper notice of the defect, and whether the highway was maintained in “reasonable repair” as required. Understanding the nuances of this statute allows defense counsel to build robust defenses, often arguing that the defect was outside the scope of the duty, or that the agency lacked sufficient notice.
Ultimately, this statute is a cornerstone for both plaintiff and defense strategies in cases involving road-related injuries. It directly impacts case evaluation, discovery efforts, settlement negotiations, and trial arguments, making it one of the most significant pieces of legislation in Michigan personal injury law for accidents occurring on public roads.