Yono v. Department of Transportation
Docket No. 150364
Trial-Lawyers’ Bottom Line: Governmental immunity extends to parallel parking lanes, so the municipality is not liable for failing to maintain that portion of the road.
Helen Yono stepped into a pothole and broke her ankle when she approached her car, which was parked in a parallel parking lane on M-22 in Suttons Bay. She sued the state for failure to maintain the road in a reasonably safe condition. The state claimed governmental immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1407(1), which grants immunity to any governmental agency “engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.”
There is one exception to this immunity, however, and that is the (familiar to many attorneys) “highway exception.” The Legislature codified the highway exception in MCL 691.1402(1) by stating that the agency responsible for highways “shall maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel.” But what the Legislature giveth, the Legislature taketh away: the statute goes on to say that the highway exception “extends only to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel.” And this brings us to Ms. Yono’s case. Was the parallel parking line—a very common road design in smaller Michigan towns—part of “the highway designed for vehicular travel”?
A skim of Justice Larsen’s majority opinion reveals that Michigan’s precedent on the highway exception was not a one-way road to clarity. Recent precedent consisted of two major cases: Nawrocki v. Macomb County Road Commission, 463 Mich. 158 (1984), and Grimes v. Department of Transportation, 475 Mich 72 (2006). Nawrocki extended the highway exception to pedestrians. And Grimes held that highway shoulders were not “designed for vehicular travel,” meaning that the government can claim immunity for any injuries suffered as a result of poor road conditions on the shoulder.
The majority opinion then dives into the existential question of what is travel, which sounds like something Spicoli would contemplate over some Doritos at 2 in the morning. While the majority tried to settle on a proper definition, the opinion really relies on Grimes and the principle that exceptions to government immunity are to be construed narrowly. As for Grimes, the Court wrote: “If traversing a short distance (entering and exiting the shoulder) is not “travel” within the meaning of the statute, we do not see how the same basic action (entering and exiting a parking lane) can be considered travel and still be faithful to our precedent.”
That the Court was interpreting an exception to government immunity seems to have decided the case. The Court stressed—multiple times—that immunity is broad and exceptions are narrowly construed. And the Court finished its opinion stating this again. Although the Court did not admit this, it appears the majority knew that the phrase “designed for vehicular travel” could be considered ambiguous (despite the opinion’s effort to say that it was not), so it used this interpretive principle to break the tie.
For future cases, the Court did include an important piece of dicta when it wrote:
"Our holding does not suggest that the highway exception requires that the area in question be designed exclusively for vehicular travel. For example, signage might indicate particular hours during which a designated parking lane is to be used as an additional travel lane. Or a street in a residential neighborhood, with no designated parking lane, might be designed for both curbside parking and vehicular travel. In this case, however, the lane was designated by the paint markings as a parking area, with no indication that it was also designed for vehicular travel."
This dicta suggests that the highway exception does extend to residential neighborhood streets with no designated parking lane that could be designed for both curbside parking and vehicular travel—meaning that the government is liable for an injury suffered on that pavement. The same applies to a lane that is reserved for travel during particular hours. Again, this is dicta, but is certainly insightful going forward.
Of little practical importance (as of now) is that this decision was 4-3, which tells us this was a close case. And the split was not along ideological lines, with Justice Viviano and Justice Bernstein joining Justice McCormack’s dissent.
Full opinion here.