Michigan Injury Lawyers Blog

The news flashed across the wires within minutes of the collision. "Stop-sign down at the intersection of V Avenue and 34th Street in Kalamazoo. Drivers Leigh Ann Polsinelli of Vicksburg and Jaima Elaine Green of East Leroy--both seriously injured and transported to Bronson Methodist Hospital".

To lawyers unfamiliar with the intricacies of personal injury law, the more tantalizing news item was that, moments prior to the accident, a Kalamazoo road crew was on its way to repair the downed traffic control devices. That is a potentially important fact because actual or constructive notice of a highway defect is a necessary element of a defective roadway law suit.

Meanwhile, back at our Grand Rapids law office, the phone lines began lighting up and the inevitable questions came pouring in. "Should the injury victims retain a Kalamazoo injury lawyer"?" Is the Kalamazoo county road commission responsible for the personal injury crash"? "Will the Kalamazoo county road commission be compelled to pay monetary compensation to the drivers who suffered personal injuries in the collision"?

The common sense answer would be, of course, yes. But common sense has taken quite a beating over the last 30 years during it's tortured journey through the Michigan court of appeals and the Michigan supreme court. And when it finally emerged from that passage, it was quite unrecognizable.

The journey actually began over 1,000 years ago in merry old England - in the days before the Magna Carta. Medieval legal scholars reasoned that, since the King was the source of all law--the King was the law. Hence, "the King could do no wrong". Accordingly, no legal claims or charges could be brought against the King in the court system.

Because that arrangement sounds a tad barbaric to 21st century ears, legal scholars of our day have dusted it off and dignified it by dubbing it a "legal doctrine". Today, therefore, it is known as the thoroughly modern phrase "Governmental Immunity".

In a nutshell, the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1407, shields government agencies from law suits by citizens injured by substandard execution of governmental functions.

An exception exists, however, with respect to highway maintenance. That exception is set forth in MCL 691.1402(1). It obligates the roadway authorities to "maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel". Accordingly, immunity may be pierced, where a party is injured due to a breach of that duty.

By the year 2000 the exception was well on its way to eclipsing the general rule, due to court decisions which enlarged the scope of the exception to encompass, for example, defective roadway signage. Then came the consolidated cases of Nawrocki v Macomb County Road Commission and Evens v Shiawassee County Road Commission.

In those cases the Michigan Supreme Court in Lansing began to rein in the scope of that exception. The Supreme Court adopted language from the plurality (some say "fractured") decision of Scheurman v Department of Transportation, (1990) and held that the true intent of the Legislature was nothing more than to impose a duty to keep the physical portion of the traveled roadbed in reasonable repair.

So, with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court simply redacted decades of road commission liability for roadside, defective sidewalks, crosswalks, signage and other defective installations outside of the improved portion of the highway. As we shall see, however, legal exceptions are some of the most prolific creatures in the litigation jungle.

That said, are our Kalamazoo injury victims simply left out in the cold? Hardly. Our information strongly suggests that at least one of the drivers involved in the Kalamazoo injury accident may have been speeding when approaching the intersection. And, thanks to yet another legal exception--a person who has the right-of-way when entering the intersection loses that right if he or she is exceeding the speed limit, which leaves the other injured party with a potential personal injury claim.

Moreover, even the driver who caused the injury accident may receive compensation for economic losses such as damage to the vehicle and other personal property, medical bills, wage loss, home nursing services, replacement services and more.

All of which goes to show that even the powerful Michigan Supreme Court can't keep a good exception down.

Stop Sign Was Down At Location Of Crash Near Vicksburg That Injured 2 Women, Kalamazoo Gazette, April 11, 2011