Governmental immunity; Markillie v. Board of Cnty. Rd. Comm’rs of Cnty. of Livingston; Governmental agency defined; MCL 691.1401(a); Political subdivision defined; MCL 691.1401(e); Jurisdiction over county roads in the context of the highway exception; MCL 224.19; MCL 224.21; Kuhn v. Associated Truck Lines, Inc.; Streng v. Board of Mackinac Cnty. Rd. Comm’rs; MCL 224.21(2) & (3); City of S. Haven v. Van Buren Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs; The highway exception to governmental immunity; Thurman v. City of Pontiac; Statutory notice requirements; Atkins v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg’l Transp.; Misplaced reliance on MCR 2.105(G)(8)

The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) based on governmental immunity to defendants-Calhoun County Road Department and Calhoun County Board of Commissioners. The parties had no material disagreement as to whether defendants are all governmental agencies. Their disagreement was over whether the Department or the Commissioners had jurisdiction over county road R Drive South. They agreed that R Drive South is a county road. They also agreed that Calhoun County was the entity with jurisdiction over county roads, including R Drive South. The trial court record showed that plaintiff did not serve “notice in writing upon the clerk and upon the chairperson of the board of county road commissioners.” He notified P, the managing director of the Department, by letter dated 7/23/14, of his notice of claim and intent to file suit. He served the managing director of the Department by certified mail with his complaint on 11/25/14. He served the Commissioners with his First Amended Complaint on 2/18/15. The Commissioners, by resolution, assumed the powers, duties and functions of the Road Commission. The 10/12 resolution was authorized under 2012 PA 14 and 2012 PA 15, which both provided that “the powers, duties, and functions that are otherwise provided by law for an appointed board of county road commissioners may be transferred to the county board of commissioners by a resolution” before 1/15. Thus, serving the Commissioners statutorily sufficed as serving the Road Commission. “However, the timing of the notice was not statutorily compliant. In accordance with MCL 224.21(3), plaintiff was required to serve his notice of claim ‘within 60 days after the occurrence of the injury.’” The deadline to serve the Commissioners was thus, 7/22/14. He did not serve the Commissioners until 271 days after the occurrence of the injury and at that time, it was service of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. The service of notice on P, even if the notice was somehow forwarded to Calhoun County, was not service on the Commissioners, as required.