MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.608 Uniform system of traffic control devices; manual.
Sec. 608.
The state transportation department and department of state police shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices consistent with the provisions of this chapter for use upon highways within this state. The manual shall correlate with and so far as possible conform to the federal manual then current as approved by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and may be revised whenever necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. It is the policy of this state to achieve, insofar as is practicable, uniformity in the design, shape, and color scheme of traffic signs, signals, and guide posts erected and maintained upon the streets and highways within this state with other states. Definitions and meanings found in the manual adopted under this section are supplemental to the definitions in chapter I. However, if a definition or meaning found in the manual adopted under this section conflicts with a definition in chapter I, the definition in chapter I prevails.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 448, Eff. Jan. 5, 2018
Notes of Decisions
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016).
· cites it 4× “for use upon highways within this state.” MCL 257.611(1) gives those traffic-control devices legal effect for enforcing the Department’s intended design of a highway by providing that “[t]he driver of a vehicle .”
Tuttle v. Dep't of State Highways, 243 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. 1976).
“4 MCLA 257.608 etseq.;MSA 9.2308 etseq. 5 See, however, Mullins v Wayne County, 16 Mich App 365, 380 ; 168 NW2d 246 (1969), where then-Judge T.”
Chaney v. Dep't of Transp., 523 N.W.2d 762 (Mich. 1994).
· cites it 2× “While the highway authority has discretion in the erection of traffic control signs, MCL 257.608; MSA 9.2308, this discretion may not be capitalized upon to shield the authority from liability for highway defects, see Mullins, supra, 381 , nor should compliance with standard…”
Mullins v. Wayne Cnty., 168 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “" The section quoted is found in a portion of the code dealing with a uniform system of traffic-control devices, and it says no more than local authorities are given discretion to place and maintain traffic-control devices on highways under their jurisdiction to indicate and to…”
Salvati v. Dep't of State Highways, 405 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. 1982).
“While the highway authority has discretion in the erection of traffic control signs, MCL 257.608; MSA 9.2308, this discretion may not be capitalized upon to shield the authority from liability for highway defects, see Mullins, supra, 381 , nor should compliance with standard…”
Cox v. City of Dearborn Heights, 534 N.W.2d 135 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“While the highway authority has discretion in the erection of traffic control signs, MCL 257.608; MSA 9.2308, this discretion may not be capitalized upon to shield the authority from liability for highway defects, see Mullins, supra, 381 , nor should compliance with standard…”
Grubaugh v. City of St. Johns, 266 N.W.2d 791 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“The trial court admitted into evidence the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, promulgated pursuant to MCLA 257.608; MSA 9.2308, and permitted plaintiffs’ expert to read and rely upon portions thereof.”
Wechsler v. Wayne Cnty. Road Comm'n, 546 N.W.2d 690 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“§ 257.608; M.S.A. § 9.2308, although "this discretion may not be capitalized upon to shield the authority from liability for highway defects.”
Martin v. Ann Arbor R.R. Co., 255 N.W.2d 763 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“The state manual provides, at page 16, that "Signs shall be installed at maximum intervals of 1/2 mile within any Speed Control Zone to confirm the speed of that zone”.”
Pick v Szymczak, 548 N.W.2d 603 (Mich. 1996).
· cites it 2× “It follows that the duty to warn must be limited. To fail to do so would make the state an insurer of highway safety, and dismantle the highway exception.”
Tuttle v. Dep't of State Highways, 231 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“As a result of the study, signalization was in fact recommended and installed but not before plaintiffs accident.”
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.