Personal injury action; Governmental immunity; The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); The GTLA’s “highway exception”; MCL 691.1402(1); Wilson v Alpena Cnty Rd Comm’n

As it was not convinced that the trial court erred by determining the highway exception applied here, the court affirmed the judgment for plaintiff against defendant after a bench trial. While riding a bus, “plaintiff suffered a fractured back after being launched upward from her seat causing her head to strike the ceiling. A portion of the regular roadway surface had been removed in a process called ‘milling.’ When the bus drove out of the milled surface area, the rear wheels of the bus struck the ridge between the milled surface and the regular roadway, sending plaintiff and other bus occupants in her vicinity up into the air.” The court concluded the evidence supported the “trial court’s determination that the gap between pavement surfaces at issue constituted a defective condition because the transition between the milled surface and the regular roadway was not reasonably safe or convenient for public travel.” The trial court viewed video footage that “captured the inside and outside of the bus, including the transitions in the construction zone at issue and the moment the passengers were launched into the air when the bus’s rear wheels traveled over the abrupt transition in question.” It established that, although “the bus traveled under the speed limit, when the bus wheels struck the abrupt elevation change, the passengers in the back of the bus were launched into the air out of their bus seats. The incident caused plaintiff to hit her head on the ceiling. The court could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the elevation difference between the two road surfaces failed to be reasonably safe for public travel and constituted a defective condition.” The court noted that the “trial court found credible plaintiff’s expert witness’s testimony that the transition between the two road surfaces was inadequate. The trial court also found credible the testimony of another bus passenger involved in the incident who . . . later examined the location of the incident and testified that the height difference between the two road surfaces in the construction area was between four and six inches. The trial court found that the height difference between the two road surfaces significantly exceeded two inches.” The court deferred to its “factual findings which are supported by the evidence. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the trial court’s decision is not inconsistent with Wilson, . . . and does not require that road conditions be ‘perfect.’ Instead, the decision requires that vehicles be able to travel safely and conveniently on public roadways that are properly maintained.”