Negligence & gross negligence action arising from a snowmobile/Department of Natural Resources (DNR) vehicle collision; The Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Act (NREPA); Applicability of the assumption-of-the-risk provision (MCL 324.82126(8)); The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); The motor vehicle exception (MCL 691.1405)

On remand from the Supreme Court to consider the applicability of MCL 324.82126(8), in an issue of first impression the court harmonized the NREPA and the GTLA and held that “the GTLA remains intact and the motor vehicle exception applies to injuries caused by” a government employee’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Further, even “if the NREPA were to supersede the GTLA, the collision between” plaintiff-Goss’s snowmobile and defendant-DNR’s vehicle “was not a risk inherent in the sport of snowmobiling.” Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition to the DNR. This case arose after Goss’s snowmobile collided with a crossover utility vehicle operated by a DNR Ranger. Goss was seriously injured and the Ranger died at the scene. The trial court ruling at issue was “that Goss did not assume the risk of the accident under MCL 324.82126(8),” part of the NREPA. The DNR asserted MCL 324.82126(8) supersedes the GTLA and “Goss assumed the risk of the accident under the statute.” The court noted that “GTLA and the NREPA have never before been harmonized, making this a matter of first impression” as well as “a difficult task” as the two “have little in common.” While both “reorganized and consolidated existing legislation into one statutory scheme, there is no direct connection between” them. That the NREPA was enacted later did not support that it was intended to limit the GTLA’s exceptions, nor did it appear there was “any limiting language in either statute to suggest that the Legislature intended for the NREPA to supersede the GTLA in places where they conflict.” Their purpose and subject matter also greatly differ. The court could not find “anything about the nature of the NREPA that would eliminate or alter the” GTLA’s exceptions to governmental immunity. “And while the NREPA is certainly a longer statute than the GTLA, neither statute is inherently more specific than the other for the subject matter they govern.” It concluded that reading them “as harmoniously as reasonably possible, the scope and purpose of each statute” supported that the GTLA’s motor-vehicle exception “remains intact even in accidents where the plaintiff is riding a snowmobile.” Further, even if it assumed MCL 324.82126(8) superseded or overrode “the GTLA under the circumstances presented here, the standard of care remains one of negligence.” And there was “no evidence that Goss assumed the risk of the accident.”