Injuries sustained while crossing a roadway; Governmental immunity; Sidewalk exception (MCL 691.1402a); Highway exception (MCL 691.1402); Distinguishing Sebring v City of Berkley; Jurisdiction over the roadway; Design defects; Hanson v Board of Cnty Rd Comm’rs

The court held that defendants-Macomb County and Shelby Township were properly granted summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims under the sidewalk and highway exceptions to governmental immunity. Further, while she urged it to adopt the reasoning of the Hanson dissent and rule that governmental entities may be liable for roadway design defects, it could not do so. The then-14-year-old plaintiff was struck and seriously injured crossing 25 Mile Road in the Township. As to her design defect argument, the court noted that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions and had “no authority to treat a Supreme Court dissent as controlling law.” As to the sidewalk exception, it did not apply to Macomb County as that provision only applies to entities defined by MCL 691.1401(d) as a “municipal corporation” and a county is not included in the definition. Thus, Macomb County “had no duty under MCL 691.1402a to maintain the sidewalk.” As to the Township, the court determined that plaintiff’s allegations did “not describe a failure to maintain the existing sidewalk in reasonable repair. They describe an alleged failure to design or construct a different pedestrian route.” The court noted that the “sidewalk exception imposes a duty to maintain an installed sidewalk in reasonable repair; it does not impose a duty to extend the sidewalk, construct a bridge, install a crosswalk, or otherwise redesign the surrounding pedestrian infrastructure.” As to the highway exception, the claim against Macomb County failed because plaintiff did not allege “a defect in the improved portion of 25 Mile Road designed for vehicular travel. Rather,” the claim she alleged, that the road was unsafe due to the lack of pedestrian protections where the sidewalk ended, was “not a repair-and-maintenance claim. It is a claim that Macomb County should have designed or redesigned the roadway and surrounding pedestrian infrastructure differently.” That theory was foreclosed by Hanson. The court added that the claim against the Township failed “for an additional reason: Shelby Township did not have jurisdiction over 25 Mile Road.” Affirmed.