Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.668 (2026)

Designating certain grade crossings as "stop" crossings or "yield" crossings; signs; duties of driver; cost of yield sign installations; action for negligence; exception for on-track equipment; failure to stop or yield as civil infraction.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE

Act 300 of 1949

257.668 Designating certain grade crossings as "stop" crossings or "yield" crossings; signs; duties of driver; cost of yield sign installations; action for negligence; exception for on-track equipment; failure to stop or yield as civil infraction.

Sec. 668.

(1) The state transportation department with respect to highways under its jurisdiction and the county road commissions and local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction may designate certain grade crossings of railways by highways as "stop" crossings, and erect signs at the crossings notifying drivers of vehicles upon the highway to come to a complete stop before crossing the railway tracks. When a crossing is designated and signposted as provided in this subsection, the driver of a vehicle shall stop not more than 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the railway tracks. The driver shall then traverse the crossing when it may be done in safety.

(2) The state transportation department with respect to highways under its jurisdiction and the county road commissions and local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction may designate certain grade crossings of railways by highways as yield crossings, and erect signs at the crossings notifying drivers of vehicles upon the highway to yield. Yield signs may be mounted on the same post as the crossbuck sign. Drivers of vehicles approaching a yield sign at the grade crossing of a railway shall maintain a reasonable speed based upon existing conditions and shall yield the right-of-way. The cost of yield sign installations shall be borne equally by the railroad and the governmental authority under whose jurisdiction the highway rests. The erection of or failure to erect, replace, or maintain a stop or yield sign or other railroad warning device, unless the device or sign was ordered by public authority, is not a basis for an action of negligence against the state transportation department, county road commissions, the railroads, or local authorities.

(3) If other on-track equipment does not trigger the activation of an electric or mechanical signal device, and employees of the railroad have followed all applicable railroad operating rules, there is no basis for a civil action against the railroad that operated the other on-track equipment, the state transportation department, a county road commission, or a local authority, or an employee or agent of the railroad that operated the other on-track equipment, the state transportation department, a county road commission, or a local authority.

(4) A person who fails to stop or yield as required by this section is responsible for a civil infraction.

History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1953, Act 76, Eff. Oct. 2, 1953 ;-- Am. 1961, Act 179, Eff. Sept. 8, 1961 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 101, Imd. Eff. Apr. 27, 1980 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 534, Eff. Oct. 1, 2002 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 394, Eff. Mar. 19, 2019

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases, 1979–2006 · leading case: Taylor v. Lenawee Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Road Commissioners, 549 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Taylor v. Lenawee Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Road Commissioners, 549 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 20× “Thus, when it was added to MCL 257.668; MSA 9.2368, the exemption certainly applied to “statutory” claims based on failing to keep roads reasonably safe.”

The Est. of Stuart Lutren, Deceased, by Jo Ann F. Lutren, Adm'x v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R., 592 F.2d 941 (6th Cir. 1979). · cites it 4× “Mich.Comp.Laws § 257.668. (a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the following circumstances the driver shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad, and shall not proceed until he…”

Paddock v. Tuscola & Saginaw Bay Ry. Co., 571 N.W.2d 564 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “Under MCL 257.668; MSA 9.2368, as well as MCL 257.”

Turner v. CSX Transp., Inc., 497 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “Under MCL 257.668; MSA 9.2368, as well as MCL 257.”

Iovino v. State, 228 Mich. App. 125 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “MCL 257.668(2); MSA 9.2368(2), concerning the erection of railroad warning devices by public authorities, states, in pertinent part: The state transportation department with respect to highways under its jurisdiction, the county road commissions, and local authorities with…”

Edington v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., 418 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “[ 2 ] The railroads and road commission moved for partial summary disposition based on MCL 257.668; MSA 9.2368. The trial court granted the motion as to the railroads and issued a written order holding that [t]o the extent that Plaintiffs’ paragraph 7B is in contravention of the…”

Petrove v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 436 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “768 and MCL 257.668; MSA 9.2388. We disagree. MCL 469.”

Harrison v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 413 N.W.2d 429 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 5× “] Prior to the 1979 amendment of MCL 257.668; MSA 9.2368, the act limited the liability of the road commissions, but not of the railroads, as follows: The erection of or failure to replace or maintain *468 such signs shall not be a basis for any action of negligence against the…”

Iovino v. State, Dept. of Transp., 625 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “*716 We briefly touch on the railroad crossing immunity statute, MCL 257.668(2); MSA 9.2368(2), because the prior opinion also included discussion of that statute.”

Iovino v. State, Dot, 577 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “§ 257.668(2); M.S.A. § 9.2368(2), concerning the erection of railroad warning devices by public authorities, states, in pertinent part: The state transportation department with respect to highways under its jurisdiction, the county road commissions, and local authorities with…”

Hall v. Consol. Rail Corp., 612 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 2000). “II The Court of Appeals said that the trial court correctly held that the defendant was under no duty to install additional or different warning systems at the crossing where plaintiff was injured, citing MCL 257.668(2); MSA 9.2386(2), and Turner v CSX Transportation, Inc, 198…”

CONMY v. Amtrak, 407 F. Supp. 2d 868 (W.D. Mich. 2005). · cites it 13× “668(2) which reads: The erection of or failure to erect, replace, or maintain a stop or yield sign or other railroad warning device, unless such devices or signs were ordered by public authority, shall not be a basis for an action of negligence against the state transportation…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.668(2) — 13 cases

Taylor v. Lenawee Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Road Commissioners, 549 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “Thus, when it was added to MCL 257.668; MSA 9.2368, the exemption certainly applied to “statutory” claims based on failing to keep roads reasonably safe.”

Paddock v. Tuscola & Saginaw Bay Ry. Co., 571 N.W.2d 564 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “Under MCL 257.668; MSA 9.2368, as well as MCL 257.”

Iovino v. State, 228 Mich. App. 125 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “MCL 257.668(2); MSA 9.2368(2), concerning the erection of railroad warning devices by public authorities, states, in pertinent part: The state transportation department with respect to highways under its jurisdiction, the county road commissions, and local authorities with…”

Turner v. CSX Transp., Inc., 497 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “Under MCL 257.668; MSA 9.2368, as well as MCL 257.”

Edington v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., 418 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “[ 2 ] The railroads and road commission moved for partial summary disposition based on MCL 257.668; MSA 9.2368. The trial court granted the motion as to the railroads and issued a written order holding that [t]o the extent that Plaintiffs’ paragraph 7B is in contravention of the…”

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.