Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 125 / Act 1 of 1966

Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1351

Definitions.

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

UTILIZATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES BY PHYSICALLY LIMITED


Act 1 of 1966


125.1351 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

    As used in this act:

    (a) "Administrative authority" means the state or local official responsible for the administration and enforcement of this act.

    (b) "Barrier free design" means those architectural designs which eliminate the type of barriers and hindrances that deter physically limited persons from having access to and free mobility in and around a building, structure, or improved area.

    (c) "Building" means a building as defined in section 2 of Act No. 230 of the Public Acts of 1972, as amended, being section 125.1502 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

    (d) "Facility used by the public" means a building, structure, or improved area utilized for purposes of education, employment, housing other than a privately owned 1 or 2 family dwelling, transportation, or recreation and for the purchase, rental, or acquisition of goods or services. A facility used by the public does not include a public facility.

    (e) "Improved area" includes parking lots, harbors, parks, beaches, public telephones, and drinking fountains.

    (f) "Physically limited" means a temporary or permanent impairment or condition which causes a person to use a wheelchair; causes a person to walk with difficulty or insecurity; affects sight or hearing to the extent that a person is insecure or exposed to danger; or causes faulty coordination or reduces mobility, flexibility, coordination, or perceptiveness; and means persons who are limited in ambulation.

    (g) "Public facility" means a building, structure, or improved area utilized for purposes of education, employment, housing other than a privately owned 1 or 2 family dwelling, transportation, or recreation and for the purchase, rental, or acquisition of goods or services, which is not a facility used by the public as defined in subdivision (d), and which is:

    (i) Owned by, or on behalf of, the state or its political subdivisions.

    (ii)  Leased or rented in whole or in part by the state or its political subdivisions after June 30, 1974, and after construction or alteration is in accordance with the plans and specifications of the lessee. A public facility which is the subject of a lease or rental agreement on June 30, 1974, shall not be required to meet barrier free design requirements contained in the state construction code for the term of the existing lease or rental agreement but shall be brought into compliance before a lease or rental agreement is renewed.

    (iii)  Financed in whole or in part by a grant or a loan made or guaranteed by the state or its political subdivisions after June 30, 1974.

    (iv)  Constructed, purchased, leased, or rented in whole or in part by the use of federal funds except as otherwise provided by federal law.

    (h) "Structure" means a structure as defined in section 2 of Act No. 230 of the Public Acts of 1972, as amended, being section 125.1502 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

History: 1966, Act 1, Eff. July 1, 1966 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 243, Eff. July 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 190, Imd. Eff. July 2, 1974 ;-- Am. 1975, Act 177, Imd. Eff. July 20, 1975

Compiler's Notes:

    For transfer of powers and duties relating to promulgation of rules by the barrier free design board from the department of labor to the director of the department of consumer and industry services, see E.R.O. No. 1996-2, compiled at MCL 445.2001 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Carr v. General Motors Corp.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carr v. General Motors Corp. (1986) mich · cites it 3× “The Legislature had previously addressed the issue of barrier-free construction in MCL 125.1351 et seq.; MSA 3.447(121) et seq.”
Novotney v. Burger King Corp. (1993) michctapp · cites it 2× “[5] Indeed, defendants presented an affidavit in the trial court from the local township building inspector that he had inspected the handicap ramp at issue and that the ramp met all the state regulations and specifications with respect to handicap access ramps promulgated…”
Dady v. Rochester School Board (1979) michctapp “; MCL 125.1351 et seq.; MSA 3.447(121) et seq.”
Kristopher William Robert Wilson v. Brk Inc (2019) michctapp · cites it 5× “In his response brief, plaintiff argued that the bar’s entranceway as constructed with the step was not in compliance with MCL 125.1351 et seq., which provide for the use of public facilities by the physically limited and require barrier-free access.”
School District of Pontiac v. City of Auburn Hills (1990) michctapp · cites it 4× “It is to be used, among others, for employment or education. Section 2 provides insight into the question whether the phrase applies only to existing facilities.”
Rosalie Rockov v. Lilley Pointe Condominium Association (2020) michctapp “1352(1) and MCL 125.1351(b). Accordingly, the trial court erred by determining that the open and obvious danger doctrine applied to plaintiff’s allegations that defendants' entranceway step violated a statutory duty owed to persons with physical limitations.”
Joseph Audette v. Tbwc Properties Inc (2023) michctapp “”) and MCL 125.1351(b) (defining “ ‘barrier free design’ ” to be “those architectural designs which eliminate the type of barriers and hindrances that deter physically limited persons from having access to and free mobility in and around a building, structure, or improved area.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1351(b) — 3 cases
Kristopher William Robert Wilson v. Brk Inc (2019) michctapp “In his response brief, plaintiff argued that the bar’s entranceway as constructed with the step was not in compliance with MCL 125.1351 et seq., which provide for the use of public facilities by the physically limited and require barrier-free access.”
Rosalie Rockov v. Lilley Pointe Condominium Association (2020) michctapp “1352(1) and MCL 125.1351(b). Accordingly, the trial court erred by determining that the open and obvious danger doctrine applied to plaintiff’s allegations that defendants' entranceway step violated a statutory duty owed to persons with physical limitations.”
Joseph Audette v. Tbwc Properties Inc (2023) michctapp “”) and MCL 125.1351(b) (defining “ ‘barrier free design’ ” to be “those architectural designs which eliminate the type of barriers and hindrances that deter physically limited persons from having access to and free mobility in and around a building, structure, or improved area.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1351(d) — 1 case
School District of Pontiac v. City of Auburn Hills (1990) michctapp “It is to be used, among others, for employment or education. Section 2 provides insight into the question whether the phrase applies only to existing facilities.”
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.