Claims against a county road commission related to the design of a culvert & failure to remove it when the road was relocated; Immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act; The “highway exception” (MCL 691.1402); Nawrocki v Macomb Cnty Rd Comm’n; Effect of a road abandonment; Design defects; Hanson v Board of Cnty Rd Comm’rs of Cnty of Mecosta; Lack of evidence of a failure to maintain; Inverse-condemnation claim; Wiggins v City of Burton; Causation; Trespass & related declaratory relief claims; Failure to plead intentionality

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that the highway exception to governmental immunity did not apply to plaintiffs’ tort claims against defendant-Road Commission (the RC). Further, the RC was entitled to summary disposition on their inverse-condemnation claim because no record facts supported plaintiffs’ claim that its “actions substantially caused the decline of the value of” their property. Finally, defendant-property owners association (the Association) was entitled to summary disposition on plaintiffs’ trespass and related declaratory relief claims because they failed to allege intentionality and thus, did not plead a trespass claim on which relief could be granted. The foundation of plaintiffs’ claim was that the RC “improperly designed the old culvert and should have removed it when it relocated Green Road. That is a fatal theory for governmental-immunity purposes for three independent reasons. First, the public’s travel safety animates the highway exception.” But the old culvert on plaintiffs’ property “is neither open to the public nor facilitates travel. Second, the public-safety duties imposed by MCL 691.1402 and MCL 224.21 make equally clear those highway, road, and culvert duties apply to governmental agencies having ‘jurisdiction over’ or ‘under its care and control.’” In this case, the RC “abandoned the old Green Road running across the eastern portion of plaintiffs’ property in 1971, and thus it” was no longer within the RC’s “jurisdiction, care and control.” And third, under Hanson, “a ‘road commission’s duty under the highway exception does not include a duty to design, or to correct defects arising from the original design or construction of highways.’” The design of the old culvert (it was too small) “is exactly what plaintiffs allege is wrong here.” The court also found that governmental immunity applied to plaintiffs’ allegations as to the other culverts involved in the case. As to the inverse-condemnation claim, as plaintiffs “failed to establish any causal connection between the [RC] and the flooding,” they also failed to show a connection between the RC “and the diminution in their property’s value.” Finally, they “did not allege that the Association acted with an intent to direct water onto” their property. They “did not allege intentionality at all[.]” Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the RC and the Association.