Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 124.419 (2026)

Transportation authority claims; notice, allowance, jurisdiction over actions against authority.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES ACT OF 1967

Act 204 of 1967

124.419 Transportation authority claims; notice, allowance, jurisdiction over actions against authority.

Sec. 19.

All claims that may arise in connection with the transportation authority shall be presented as ordinary claims against a common carrier of passengers for hire: Provided, That written notice of any claim based upon injury to persons or property shall be served upon the authority no later than 60 days from the occurrence through which such injury is sustained and the disposition thereof shall rest in the discretion of the authority and all claims that may be allowed and final judgment obtained shall be liquidated from funds of the authority: Provided, further, That only the courts situated in the counties in which the authority principally carries on its function are the proper counties in which to commence and try action against the authority.

History: 1967, Act 204, Imd. Eff. July 10, 1967

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Nuculovic v. Hill, 287 Mich. App. 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nuculovic v. Hill, 287 Mich. App. 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 47× “Plaintiff sued defendants in 2006, more than 60 days after the accident, alleging injuries resulting from the negligence of defendants. Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.”

Atkins v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp., 822 N.W.2d 522 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 72× “, granted defendant’s motion for partial summary disposition, concluding that plaintiff had given notice of her injury but had failed to give defendant notice of her tort claims within 60 days of the accident as required by the notice provision of the Metropolitan Transportation…”

Fields v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp., 874 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 50× “First, whether plaintiff complied with the presuit notice requirements set forth in MCL 124.419. Second, if plaintiff did not comply, whether the sanction of dismissal is mandated by the text of the statute.”

Clay v. Doe, 876 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 17× “Specifically, plaintiff claimed that the bus driver accelerated too quickly as he drove the bus away from the stop, which caused plaintiff to slip, fall, and incur injuries.”

Nuculovic v. Hill, 783 N.W.2d 124 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 49× “Plaintiff sued defendants in 2006, more than 60 days after the accident, alleging injuries resulting from the negligence of defendants.”

Jamie Perilla v. John Kinsman Gale (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 23× “Defendant SMART argues that the trial court erred in finding (1) plaintiff provided written notice of his claims to SMART pursuant to MCL 124.419, and (2) plaintiff provided sufficient evidence that his injuries were caused by the motor vehicle accident and constituted serious…”

Vivian Nickens v. Cheryl Thomas (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 21× “See MCL 124.419. Indeed, in plaintiff’s affidavit, she averred that she was not advised by SMART or ASU Group that she needed to file a notice of claim, as SMART and ASU Group “were already handling it.”

Samie Turney Jr v. Smart (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 19× “On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by finding that plaintiff did not provide written notice of his claims to SMART pursuant to MCL 124.419 and dismissing the action. We agree.”

Dartisha Dalena Willis v. Smart (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “116(C)(10) because plaintiff failed to serve SMART with written notice of a claim pursuant to MCL 124.419. We reverse and remand for entry of summary disposition in favor of SMART.”

Est. of Jimmie Lee Brown v. Unidentified Emp. of Smart (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 10× “SMART argued that plaintiff’s letter did not indicate any intent to sue SMART for ordinary claims that arose out of Brown’s use of a SMART bus, and that SMART is a regional government transportation authority that is entitled to governmental immunity under the governmental tort…”

Trent v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp., 651 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “Defendants smart and Mark moved for summary disposition, asserting that plaintiff failed to comply with the sixty-day notice provision of MCL 124.419 for parties asserting claims against transportation authorities.”

Debra Fields v. Smart (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 11× “The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants on the basis of plaintiff not meeting the notice requirements of MCL 124.419, and plaintiff appeals as of right.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.