Opinion Analysis: Parallel parking lanes do not fall under the highway exception to governmental immunity

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”?

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.

Read More

Opinion Analysis: Construction lien can be enforced by prevailing through foreclosure

Two parties each claimed breach of a construction contract. The construction company claimed a construction lien for over $600K. At arbitration, the arbitrator awarded the construction company that amount, but also awarded the purchaser $185K. The purchaser paid the amount in full, which the construction company accepted.

The Construction Lien Act (CLA), MCL 570.1118, grants a court discretion to award attorney’s fees to “a lien claimant who is the prevailing party” in “an action to enforce a construction lien through foreclosure.” The question is whether the construction company “prevail[ed]” when it won on a breach of contract claim and accepted a full payment mandated by an arbitrator.

Trial-Lawyers’ Bottom Line: A company can prevail in an action to enforce a construction lien through foreclosure, even if it doesn’t win on the construction lien claim.

Read More

Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Manufacturing

Trial-Lawyers’ Bottom Line: A party can't claim failure of consideration when it seeks to void the contract on the basis of an event explicitly contemplated by the contract.   In addition, restrictive covenants between businesses are governed by federal interpretation of the rule of reason as directed by MARA.
Read More

People v. Feeley

Trial Lawyers’ Bottom Line: For purposes of Michigan’s resisting arrest statute, a police officer is someone who is (1) trained and (2) entrusted by the government to (3) maintain peace and public order.
Read More

People v. Allen

Trial Lawyers' Bottom Line: SORA creates three separate offenses, so a court can use HOA to sentence a SORA-2 offender to 1.5-times the maximum sentence.Court suggests HOA can be used for any statutory scheme with sentence enhancements for repeat offenders, unless there's an explicit carveout.
Read More