narrowly drawn highway exception (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

narrowly drawn highway exception in Michigan

9 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Grimes v. Department of Transportationgreen
mich · 2006 · cited in 4 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2009–2026
2 sentences

2023Accordingly, “if the condition is not located in the actual roadbed designed for vehicular travel, the narrowly drawn highway exception is inapplicable and liability does not attach.” Id., quoting Nawrocki, 463 Mich at 162 ; see, also, Grimes v Mich Dep’t of Transp, 475 Mich 72, 78 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006) (The duty of the state and county road commissions to repair and maintain does not extend to every “improved portion of highway;” rather, the duty attaches only “to the improved portion of highway” that is also “designed for vehicular travel.”).

2023Accordingly, “if the condition is not located in the actual roadbed designed for vehicular travel, the narrowly drawn highway exception is inapplicable and liability does not attach.” Id., quoting Nawrocki, 463 Mich at 162 ; see, also, Grimes v Mich Dep’t of Transp, 475 Mich 72, 78 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006) (The duty of the state and county road commissions to repair and maintain does not extend to every “improved portion of highway;” rather, the duty attaches only “to the improved portion of highway” that is also “designed for vehicular travel.”).

24
Nawrocki v. MacOmb County Road Commissiongreen
mich · 2000 · cited in 7 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2003–2026
2 sentences

2026It thus “definitively limits the state and county road commissions’ duty with respect to the location of the alleged dangerous or defective condition; if the condition is not located in the actual roadbed designed for vehicular travel, the narrowly drawn highway exception is inapplicable and liability does not attach.” Id. at 161-162 .

2023Accordingly, “if the condition is not located in the actual roadbed designed for vehicular travel, the narrowly drawn highway exception is inapplicable and liability does not attach.” Id., quoting Nawrocki, 463 Mich at 162 ; see, also, Grimes v Mich Dep’t of Transp, 475 Mich 72, 78 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006) (The duty of the state and county road commissions to repair and maintain does not extend to every “improved portion of highway;” rather, the duty attaches only “to the improved portion of highway” that is also “designed for vehicular travel.”).

17

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Scheurman v. Department of Transportation green
mich · 1990
2 sentences

2012The Court clarified that the improved portion designed for vehicular travel encompasses only the “ ‘traveled portion, paved or unpaved, of the roadbed actually designed for public vehicular travel.’ ” Id. at 180 , quoting Scheurman v Dep’t of Transp, 434 Mich 619, 631 ; 456 NW2d 66 (1990).

2012The Court clarified that the improved portion designed for vehicular travel encompasses only the “ ‘traveled portion, paved or unpaved, of the roadbed actually designed for public vehicular travel.’ ” Id. at 180 , quoting Scheurman v Dep’t of Transp, 434 Mich 619, 631 ; 456 NW2d 66 (1990).

31996–2012
Snead v. John Carlo, Inc. green
michctapp · 2011
1 sentence

2023Accordingly, “if the condition is not located in the actual roadbed designed for vehicular travel, the narrowly drawn highway exception is inapplicable and liability does not attach.” Id., quoting Nawrocki, 463 Mich at 162 ; see, also, Grimes v Mich Dep’t of Transp, 475 Mich 72, 78 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006) (The duty of the state and county road commissions to repair and maintain does not extend to every “improved portion of highway;” rather, the duty attaches only “to the improved portion of highway” that is also “designed for vehicular travel.”).

12023–2023
Stevenson v. City of Detroit green
michctapp · 2004
2 sentences

2023In Mitchell v Detroit, 264 Mich App 37 ; 689 NW2d 239 (2004), this Court held that a “berm,” consisting of “a strip of land between a public road and a sidewalk,” id. at 38 , is not included within the definition of the term “highway” because the plain language of the statute does not support such a conclusion.

2023In Mitchell v Detroit, 264 Mich App 37 ; 689 NW2d 239 (2004), this Court held that a “berm,” consisting of “a strip of land between a public road and a sidewalk,” id. at 38 , is not included within the definition of the term “highway” because the plain language of the statute does not support such a conclusion.

12023–2023

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402 (9) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401 (8) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407 (7)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check