Background
Fourteen-year-old VC was riding her bicycle west on the sidewalk along the north side of 25 Mile Road in Shelby Township when the sidewalk ended near Lawson Creek Drive. The sidewalk on the road’s south side continued across the creek by a pedestrian bridge, but there was no crosswalk, sign, or intersection connecting the two sides. After VC stopped and waited for traffic before attempting to cross, a westbound driver struck her, throwing her approximately 40 feet and causing severe injuries.
VC sued Macomb County and Shelby Township, alleging that the abruptly ending sidewalk violated the sidewalk exception to governmental immunity, that the absence of a crosswalk or other pedestrian protections violated the highway exception, and that defendants failed to correct dangerous design defects. She offered evidence that a nearby homeowner had repeatedly raised concerns about the location and an expert’s opinion that the sidewalk system failed to provide a safe continuation route. The circuit court granted summary disposition to both defendants based on governmental immunity.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Macomb County could not be liable under the sidewalk exception because a county is not a “municipal corporation” as defined by the Governmental Tort Liability Act. Although Shelby Township is a municipal corporation, VC alleged a defect in the sidewalk’s design—not a failure to keep the existing sidewalk in reasonable repair. A sidewalk is not in disrepair merely because it ends, and the statute does not require a township to extend a sidewalk, build a bridge, install a crosswalk, or redesign surrounding pedestrian infrastructure.
The highway-exception claims also failed. The claim against Macomb County concerned the absence of pedestrian protections rather than a defect in the improved portion of the road designed for vehicular travel. Under Hanson v. Board of County Road Commissioners, the highway exception imposes duties to repair and maintain highways, but not to design or redesign them. Shelby Township separately could not be liable because it lacked jurisdiction over 25 Mile Road, a county highway. The court also rejected VC’s request to adopt the Hanson dissent, explaining that it was bound by the Michigan Supreme Court’s majority decision.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan’s sidewalk exception applies to cities, villages, and townships, but not counties.
- An installed sidewalk’s abrupt ending is a design or construction issue, not necessarily a failure to maintain the sidewalk in reasonable repair.
- The highway exception does not require a governmental agency to install a crosswalk, signage, or other pedestrian protections, and liability attaches only to an agency having jurisdiction over the highway.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a firm boundary between actionable failures to repair existing infrastructure and immune decisions about how infrastructure should be designed or expanded. Evidence that officials knew a pedestrian route was dangerous did not bring the claims within the statutory exceptions because the alleged danger arose from missing connections and protections rather than deterioration of the existing sidewalk or vehicular roadbed.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores that avoiding governmental immunity requires allegations and evidence fitting the precise statutory exception, including the type and location of the defect and the defendant agency’s jurisdiction. Policy arguments favoring governmental liability for dangerous roadway design remain matters for the Michigan Supreme Court or Legislature.