PATRICK MANN SR V ST CLAIR COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK MANN, SR., and GAYE MANN,
Individually and as Next Friend of PATRICK
MANN, JR., Minor,
FOR PUBLICATION
November 15, 2002
9:05 a.m.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
ST. CLAIR COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 226443
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 98-001686-NI
Updated Copy
February 14, 2003
Before: Hood, P.J., and Murphy and Markey, JJ.
MURPHY, J.
Defendant St. Clair County Road Commission appeals by leave granted the trial court's
order denying defendant's motion in limine to preclude application of the five percent damage
reduction cap authorized by MCL 257.710e(6)1 in circumstances where the injured parties were
allegedly not wearing safety belts at the time of the accident. We affirm.
Under the controlling language of Klinke v Mitsubishi Motors Corp, 458 Mich 582; 581
NW2d 272 (1998), and principles governing analysis of issues under the Title-Object Clause,
Const 1963, art 4, § 24, any comparative negligence of plaintiffs, if established at trial, is subject
to application of the statutory five percent damage reduction cap.2 In this action involving the
alleged liability of defendant road commission under the highway exception to governmental
immunity, MCL 691.1402,3 application of the cap under subsection 710e(6) does not violate the
Michigan Constitution's Title-Object Clause.
1
Subsection 710e(6) provides that the "[f]ailure to wear a safety belt in violation of this section
may be considered evidence of negligence and may reduce the recovery for damages arising out
of the ownership, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle. However, such negligence shall
not reduce the recovery for damages by more than 5%."
2
Defendant sought to avoid application of MCL 257.710e(6) presumably so that defendant could
present testimony concerning the degree plaintiffs' failure to use safety belts exacerbated their
injuries and perhaps obtain a greater percentage reduction in damages that a jury would award.
3
Subsection 2(1) provides, in part:
(continued…)
-1-
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs4 allege that Patrick Mann, Sr., and Patrick Mann, Jr., suffered various injuries
after their vehicle "slipped" off the edge of the roadway and onto the shoulder. Plaintiffs
represent that Mann, Sr., had difficulty returning the vehicle to the roadway because of a
"significant shoulder drop-off." As a consequence, Mann, Sr., lost control of the vehicle and it
eventually collided with a tree on the side of the roadway. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an action
against defendant, alleging in part that defendant's negligent maintenance of the shoulder of the
roadway proximately caused plaintiffs' injuries.
Defendant filed an affirmative defense alleging plaintiffs' comparative negligence based
on their failure to wear safety belts.5 Defendant moved in limine for a ruling that the statutory
provision, MCL 257.710e(6), does not apply in this highway liability case. The circuit court
disagreed, ruling that the statutory cap of five percent applies and declining to extend the
rationale of Klinke, supra. Defendant's interlocutory application for leave to appeal was granted,
and the circuit court has stayed the trial pending a decision from this Court.
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the five percent
statutory cap on the reduction of damages for failure to wear safety belts applies to a claim
against a road commission for failure to maintain a roadway in reasonable repair. We disagree.
A. THE "SEAT BELT DEFENSE"
This case turns on the interpretation of the safety belt law,6 Klinke, and the Title-Object
Clause, Const 1963, art 4, § 24. Some perspective on the history of the "seat belt defense" is
helpful.7
(…continued)
Except as otherwise provided in section 2a, each governmental agency
having jurisdiction over a highway shall maintain the highway in reasonable
repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. A person who
sustains bodily injury or damage to his or her property by reason of failure of a
governmental agency to keep a highway under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair
and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel may recover the damages
suffered by him or her from the governmental agency.
4
Plaintiff Gaye Mann is next friend of her son, Patrick Mann, Jr., and has a loss of consortium
claim.
5
Plaintiff Patrick Mann, Sr., testified during his deposition that he and his son were wearing
safety belts.
6
MCL 257.710e.
7
The term "seat belt defense" dates back to a time when the only belts in a car were lap belts
(seat belts). Now, a three-point harness is used (lap and shoulder belts), so the term "safety belt"
(continued…)
-2-
For years, an injured party's failure to mitigate or eliminate the risk of injury by using
safety belts was not considered a valid defense under the common law. Hierta v Gen Motors
Corp, 147 Mich App 274, 278-280; 382 NW2d 765 (1985), remanded for reconsideration on
other grounds 429 Mich 887 (1987); Schmitzer v Misener-Bennett Ford, Inc, 135 Mich App 350,
359-360; 354 NW2d 336 (1984); Romankewiz v Black, 16 Mich App 119, 127; 167 NW2d 606
(1969). At the time, the law in Michigan did not require a driver or passengers to use safety
belts, so the court declined to impose such a duty and create a common-law seat belt defense. Id.
at 127.
1. Legislation
In 1984, the federal Department of Transportation announced that passive restraint
systems (such as air bags) would be required beginning with 1990 model year vehicles unless
states representing two-thirds of the nation's population enacted and enforced mandatory safety
belt laws. Senate Analysis, SB 6, January 15, 1985; Casenotes: Lowe v Estate Motors Ltd.—The
Michigan Supreme Court Says Yes to the Seat Belt Defense, 5 Cooley L R 159, 163 (1988); 49
Fed Reg 28962 (July 17, 1984).
In response, the Legislature in 1985 enacted MCL 257.710e(3) to generally require the
use of safety belts. In another subsection, MCL 257. 710e(6), the Legislature allowed defendants
to use a seat belt defense as evidence of negligence, but the Legislature capped the amount of
comparative negligence to five percent.8 Thus, for the first time, defendants could argue that a
plaintiff 's failure to use safety belts contributed to the plaintiff 's injuries, but this failure to
mitigate could result in a reduction of the recovery by no more than five percent. At the time,
any defense for failure to use safety belts was legislatively created. If the statutory defense were
not applied, a defendant would be deprived of any seat belt defense whatsoever. The purpose for
the five percent cap was "to protect plaintiffs against [a] drastic reduction in damage awards."
Thompson v Fitzpatrick, 199 Mich App 5, 8; 501 NW2d 172 (1993).
2. Change in Common Law
Shortly after these statutes were adopted, the Supreme Court decided to create a commonlaw seat belt defense as well. Lowe v Estate Motors Ltd, 428 Mich 439; 410 NW2d 706 (1987)
(products liability action against manufacturer and distributor of automobile). This was
occasioned at least in part by the abolition of contributory negligence9 in favor of the less harsh
(…continued)
is generally used to describe the feature. MCL 257.710e uses this modern terminology. The
legal expression, however, has remained the "seat belt defense."
8
An early draft of the bill, HB 4203, would have required seat belt usage but prohibited the seat
belt defense. Schmitzer, supra at 358, n 5.
9
Placek v Sterling Heights, 405 Mich 638, 650; 275 NW2d 511 (1979). Coincidentally, Placek
was a "seat belt defense" case when it first came to the Court of Appeals. See Placek v Sterling
Heights, 52 Mich App 619; 217 NW2d 900 (1974). The Court of Appeals found that the
defendant's reference to the plaintiff 's failure to wear a safety belt was irrelevant and prejudicial
and remanded for a new trial. Id. at 622. When Placek was appealed after the second trial,
(continued…)
-3-
system of comparative negligence. Id. at 459-460 (Riley, C.J.). The effect of Lowe is that the
five percent cap can be increased under the common law if the statute does not apply. Thus, if
the statutory cap does not apply, a defendant would be free to seek a more substantial deduction
for a plaintiff 's comparative negligence for failing to wear safety belts.
The Supreme Court in Lowe addressed the possible effect of the safety belt statute on
comparative negligence and reduction of damages even though the parties had not briefed the
issue. Id. at 485 (Levin, J., dissenting). In section V of Chief Justice Riley's separate opinion,
she wrote:
Before addressing the second issue, we pause to acknowledge the recent
enactment of the mandatory seat belt usage legislation, MCL 257.710e; MSA
9.2410(5), and to respond to the positions expressed in the dissenting opinions as
they relate to that legislation. That statute, which took effect on July 1, 1985,
requires drivers and front-seat passengers of motor vehicles operated in this state
to wear seat belts, making the failure to use them unlawful. Section five provides,
furthermore, that failure to use a seat belt in violation of the statute may be
considered evidence of negligence, also providing that such negligence shall not
reduce a plaintiff 's recovery by more than five percent. The statutory seat belt
usage requirement and its accompanying provisions are inapplicable in the instant
case because: (1) the accident occurred prior to the statute's effective date, (2)
plaintiff was a rear-seat passenger to whom the statute, by its terms, would not
have applied, and (3) the accident occurred beyond the territorial boundaries of
this state where it would not have been contrary to this statute for any passenger
not to have used a seat belt. [Id. at 462-463.]
This section of the opinion received four votes. See id. at 476. Although Lowe was a products
liability case, the Supreme Court did not include a violation of the Title-Object Clause in its list
of reasons the safety belt statute would not apply. Nonetheless, because this section of the
opinion was dicta, it did not bind the Supreme Court in Klinke.
3. Klinke: Exception to the Statute
In 1998, the Supreme Court considered the case of Klinke, in which an automobile
manufacturer argued that it was not bound by the five percent cap in a products liability case.
Klinke, supra at 589. In a plurality decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the manufacturer's
position.
The Supreme Court wrote three opinions. The lead opinion, written by Justice Weaver
and joined by Justice Taylor, interpreted the state constitution's Title-Object Clause to mean that
the vehicle code's safety belt section did not affect the civil liability of manufacturers. Id. at 590591. The title of the vehicle code stated that it was in part an act "to provide for civil liability of
(…continued)
contributory negligence became the issue, leading to our Supreme Court's historic decision to
adopt comparative negligence in Michigan. 405 Mich 650.
-4-
owners and operators of vehicles . . . ."10 The title could not be used to extend civil liability to
manufacturers not mentioned in the title. Klinke, supra at 589-591.
Justice Boyle penned the second opinion, joined by Chief Justice Mallett and Justice
Brickley. In it, she wrote that the terms of art used in MCL 257.710e(6)—namely, its statement
that it applies in cases "'arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or operation of a motor
vehicle'"—tracked the language of the no-fault act and showed a legislative intent to apply the
statute only to no-fault cases. Klinke, supra at 594. Justice Boyle also agreed with Justice
Weaver's position regarding the Title-Object Clause:
However, the Vehicle Code, designed to regulate the liability of "owners
and operators of vehicles,"[11] was not intended to regulate the liability of a
manufacturer in a products liability action by subjecting the manufacturer to
liability for an owner's or operator's negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The
dissent would extend the safety belt statute beyond the context of the owner's or
operator's liability and require the manufacturer to pay for losses the jury has
attributed to the conduct of the driver. Because the Vehicle Code does not
contemplate regulation of manufacturer liability, such an extension of its scope
would be error. [Id. at 594, n 3.]
Two justices therefore supported limiting the safety belt statute to the dimensions found
in the title to the vehicle code and three supported limiting it to no-fault actions. All five agreed,
however, that the title of the vehicle code did not contemplate regulation of manufacturer
liability. Klinke is binding authority because a majority agreed on this line of reasoning. Negri v
10
The full title of the act is:
An act to provide for the registration, titling, sale, transfer, and regulation
of certain vehicles operated upon the public highways of this state or any other
place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles and
distressed vehicles; to provide for the licensing of dealers; to provide for the
examination, licensing, and control of operators and chauffeurs; to provide for the
giving of proof of financial responsibility and security by owners and operators of
vehicles; to provide for the imposition, levy, and collection of specific taxes on
vehicles, and the levy and collection of sales and use taxes, license fees, and
permit fees; to provide for the regulation and use of streets and highways; to
create certain funds; to provide penalties and sanctions for a violation of this act;
to provide for civil liability of owners and operators of vehicles and service of
process on residents and nonresidents; to provide for the levy of certain
assessments; to provide for the enforcement of this act; to provide for the creation
of and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to
impose liability upon the state or local agencies; to repeal all other acts or parts of
acts inconsistent with this act or contrary to this act; and to repeal certain parts of
this act on a specific date.
11
This quoted language comes from the title of the vehicle code as relied on by Justice Weaver,
not the text of the safety belt statute.
-5-
Slotkin, 397 Mich 105, 109; 244 NW2d 98 (1976); People v Anderson, 389 Mich 155, 170; 205
NW2d 461 (1973).
B. ROAD COMMISSION LIABILITY
1. Title-Object Clause Analysis
We find that there is a distinction between a products liability action and an action
brought against a governmental unit under the highway exception to governmental immunity in
the context of determining whether MCL 257.710e(6) is applicable. The distinction involves
relevant language in the title of the vehicle code that supports a finding that the damage
reduction cap of § 710e does not violate the Title-Object Clause if applied in the case before us
today. The title of the vehicle code states, in part, that it is an act "to provide for the regulation
and use of streets and highways." Justice Weaver suggested that this language would provide for
application of the cap in actions other than those against owners and operators of vehicles.
Klinke, supra at 591, n 7. We agree and conclude that such a reading is proper pursuant to the
guiding principles concerning title-object analysis and that the referenced phrase in the title
allows application of the damage reduction cap against defendant.
The decisive question here is whether applying subsection 710e(6) to the liability of
governmental units for defective highways results in the subsection exceeding the scope of the
title of the vehicle code. See Klinke, supra at 590. With regard to the liability of manufacturers
in a products liability action, Justice Weaver concluded in Klinke, id. at 591:
As a matter of statutory interpretation, we must not, and under
constitutional principles we cannot, apply statutes in the motor vehicle code to
cases involving the civil liability of manufacturers. Accordingly, § 710e's cap on
the reduction for comparative negligence for failure to wear a seat belt, which is
part of the motor vehicle code, does not apply in the present action, which
involves the liability of a manufacturer.
As noted above, Justice Weaver and Justice Boyle focused on the language contained in
the title of the vehicle code, which expressed that it was an act "to provide for civil liability of
owners and operators of vehicles . . . ." Klinke, supra at 589, 594, n 3. At first glance, it would
appear that this language would support a finding that the title, and therefore subsection 710e(6),
was not meant to cover the liability of governmental units under the highway exception to
governmental immunity because the title does not directly speak of the civil liability of
governmental units.12 However, the failure of the Legislature to particularly state that the act
provides for "civil liability" should not defeat application of the damage reduction cap, where a
governmental unit fails to properly maintain a highway over which it exercises control regarding
the highway's use and regulation.
12
Interestingly, the Klinke holding would apparently support application of subsection 710e(6) to
an action against a governmental unit under the motor vehicle exception to governmental
immunity pursuant to MCL 691.1405.
-6-
In Justice Kelly's dissent in Klinke, she stated:
The seat belt statute affects the liability of manufacturers, but does not
mention manufacturers in its title. It does not follow that its application to the
civil liability of manufacturers is unconstitutional. If that were the case, would it
not be unconstitutional to apply the motor vehicle code to the civil liability of
pedestrians, bicyclists, passengers, and the state? [Id. at 603.]
In direct response to Justice Kelly's comments regarding the civil liability of those not
directly mentioned in the title of the vehicle code, Justice Weaver stated:
The dissent incorrectly suggests that our holding (that application of the
motor vehicle code to products liability actions would violate the Title-Object
Clause) compels a conclusion that applying the code to pedestrians, bicyclists,
passengers, or the state would similarly be unconstitutional. This critique ignores
the fact that the title of the code includes provisions that address these examples,
e.g., the title states that it provides for "regulation and use of streets and
highways" and for the "regulation of certain vehicles operated upon the public
highways of this state." [Id. at 591, n 7 (emphasis added).]
This language indicates that Justice Weaver would not require the title to specifically
provide for "civil liability" before application of subsection 710e(6), where there is reference in
the title to a topic that necessarily encompasses the subject of a legal action.
We do not rest our position solely on the statements made by Justice Weaver in Klinke,
but also on the principles guiding judicial analysis of a constitutional challenge under the TitleObject Clause.
"[A]ll possible presumptions should be afforded to find constitutionality." Advisory
Opinion re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294, 389 Mich 441, 464; 208 NW2d 469 (1973). The
Title-Object Clause, Const 1963, art 4, § 24, provides, in part, that "[n]o law shall embrace more
than one object, which shall be expressed in its title." In Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich
675, 691-692; 641 NW2d 219 (2002), our Supreme Court, discussing the general nature of the
Title-Object Clause, stated:
This constitutional provision requires that (1) a law must not embrace
more than one object, and (2) the object of the law must be expressed in its title.
This constitutional limitation ensures that legislators and the public receive proper
notice of legislative content and prevents deceit and subterfuge. The goal of the
clause is notice, not restriction of legislation.
The "object" of a law is defined as its general purpose or aim. The "one
object" provision must be construed reasonably, not in so narrow or technical a
manner that the legislative intent is frustrated. We should not invalidate
legislation simply because it contains more than one means of attaining its
primary object; "[h]owever, if the act contains 'subjects diverse in their nature,
and having no necessary connection,'" it violates the Title-Object Clause. The act
-7-
may include all matters germane to its object, as well as all provisions that
directly relate to, carry out, and implement the principal object. The statute "may
authorize the doing of all things which are in furtherance of the general purpose of
the Act without violating the 'one object' limitation of art 4, § 24." Finally, the
constitutional requirement is not that the title refer to every detail of the act;
rather, "[i]t is sufficient that 'the act centers to one main general object or purpose
which the title comprehensively declares, though in general terms, and if
provisions in the body of the act not directly mentioned in the title are germane,
auxiliary, or incidental to that general purpose[.] [Citations omitted; alterations in
original.]
The Legislature can make the title of an act as restrictive as it desires and may sometimes
frame the title so as to preclude many matters being included in the act that might have been
embraced in one enactment with the matters indicated by the title, but that must now be excluded
because the title has been made unnecessarily restrictive. Klinke, supra at 590, quoting In re
Hauck, 70 Mich 396, 403; 38 NW 269 (1888). Courts are without authority to enlarge the scope
of a title, and the constitution has made the title the conclusive index to the intent of the
Legislature with regard to what shall have operation. Klinke, supra at 590, quoting Hauck, supra
at 403.
Here, there is a natural correlation or connection between governmental liability for
failing to maintain a highway in reasonable repair and the Michigan Vehicle Code, which
governs the operation of vehicles on those same public highways. No such correlation with the
vehicle code arises in the context of a products liability action that can conceivably cover
anything from a defective motor vehicle to a defective toaster. If the title to the vehicle code
allows the Legislature to enact statutes addressing the regulation and use of streets and highways
within the code, it would be illogical to conclude that the scope of the title did not necessarily
include legislative authority to enact statutes directing limits on liability and comparative
negligence, where streets and highways are not kept in reasonable repair.
The title of the vehicle code provides sufficient notice that statutes found within the code
may affect the liability of governmental units for defective highways, where the title enunciates
that its purpose is to provide for the regulation and use of streets and highways. Although the
title does not specifically reference the "civil liability" of governmental units, the general
purpose or aim clearly encompasses that matter, and any other reading would be so narrow and
technical as to frustrate the legislative intent. It is proper to interpret subsection 710e(6) as being
applicable in the context of the case at bar because the statute directly relates to, carries out, and
implements the object of the title in regard to the regulation and use of streets and highways.
The title is not framed in such a manner so as to preclude application of subsection 710e(6) to the
liability of road commissions. Moreover, as our Supreme Court stated in Pohutski, supra at 692,
the title need not refer to every detail, and it is sufficient if a legislative enactment contains
matters germane, auxiliary, or incidental to the general purpose stated in the title. On the basis of
the language in Pohutski and Justice Weaver's comments, we cannot agree with defendant that
application of the comparative negligence cap is unconstitutional because the vehicle code fails
to specifically mention the liability of road commissions. Reading subsection 710e(6) as being
applicable to an action against a governmental unit under the highway exception to governmental
-8-
immunity does not result in subsection 710e(6) exceeding the scope of the vehicle code's title.
There is no violation of the Title-Object Clause if the statutory five percent damage reduction
cap is applied in the case at bar.13
2. Statutory Interpretation of MCL 257.710e(6)
Defendant mischaracterizes the holding in Klinke by arguing that the Supreme Court
focused on the language of subsection 710e(6), which provides a cap on "damages arising out of
the ownership, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle." Defendant maintains that the
Klinke Court, in analyzing subsection 710e(6), examined the defendant's activity and whether it
involved the ownership, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle. As we ruled above, the
only binding principles emanating from Klinke concern the Title-Object Clause and the language
in the title of the vehicle code in relation to a products liability case, not interpretation of
subsection 710e(6). Nevertheless, we will address the issue concerning the proper interpretation
of subsection 710e(6) because the matter is raised in defendant's brief.
13
With regard to the dissent's argument that definitional conflicts exist between the vehicle code
and MCL 691.1401 concerning the definition of "highway," we fail to see how this has any
effect on the title-object analysis. If a plaintiff is not entitled to file suit on the basis of
governmental immunity under the highway exception because of the limiting language defining a
"highway" under MCL 691.1401(e), there is no need to reach subsection 710e(6). If a plaintiff
can maintain the suit under the narrower highway definition found in MCL 691.1401(e), the
broader highway definition found in the vehicle code, MCL 257.20, would not bar application of
subsection 710e(6). Even if a governmental unit could be liable under the immunity statutes and
application of the "highway" definition in the vehicle code resulted in a plaintiff 's not being
required to wear a seatbelt pursuant to § 710e, the effect would simply be the inability of the
plaintiff to utilize the comparative negligence cap. See Lowe, supra. We do not agree that in
applying the cap, courts would be confronted with the dilemma of deciding whether to apply the
definitions found in the governmental immunity statutes or those found in the vehicle code. The
definitions in MCL 691.1401 would apply to analysis of issues regarding interpretation of the
governmental immunity statutes, and the definitions in the vehicle code would apply to analysis
of issues regarding interpretation of the statutes found in the code. Moreover, the binding
holding in Klinke did not rely in any part on definitional conflicts.
The dissent also argues that the Legislature obviously intended that the liability of
governmental units be controlled by the governmental immunity statutes, not the broader vehicle
code. We respectfully disagree because the liability of governmental units can be affected or
controlled by statutes other than the immunity statutes. For example, statutes concerning periods
of limitation, collateral source benefits, MCL 600.6303, and allocation of fault, MCL 600.6304,
can all affect and control a governmental unit's liability despite the fact that those provisions are
not included as part of the governmental immunity statutes. If other statutes directly conflicted
with the immunity statutes in any meaningful manner, we would agree that the more specific
immunity statutes control, but there is no such conflict with regard to subsection 710e(6).
-9-
Questions regarding statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. In re MCI
Telecommunications Complaint, 460 Mich 396, 413; 596 NW2d 164 (1999). Recently our
Supreme Court in Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp, 466 Mich 57, 63; 642 NW2d 663 (2002),
reaffirmed the following rules concerning statutory interpretation:
An anchoring rule of jurisprudence, and the foremost rule of statutory
construction, is that courts are to effect the intent of the Legislature. People v
Wager, 460 Mich 118, 123, n 7; 594 NW2d 487 (1999). To do so, we begin with
an examination of the language of the statute. Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare
System, 465 Mich 53, 60; 631 NW2d 686 (2001). If the statute's language is clear
and unambiguous, then we assume that the Legislature intended its plain meaning
and the statute is enforced as written. People v Stone, 463 Mich 558, 562; 621
NW2d 702 (2001). A necessary corollary of these principles is that a court may
read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of
the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself. Omne Financial,
Inc v Shacks, Inc, 460 Mich 305, 311; 596 NW2d 591 (1999).
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction or interpretation is
unnecessary and precluded. Lorencz v Ford Motor Co, 439 Mich 370, 376; 483 NW2d 844
(1992). Only if judicial construction is necessary must this Court determine and give effect to
the Legislature's intent. Id.
Subsection 710e(6) does not provide that "liability" must arise out of the operation of a
motor vehicle, but rather that "damages" must so arise, and subsection 710e(6) does not provide
that damages must arise out of the operation of a particular party's motor vehicle, but rather only
that the damages arise out of the operation of a motor vehicle. Therefore, the clear language of
subsection 710e(6) required only that plaintiffs suffered damages arising out of the operation of a
motor vehicle as alleged here. If plaintiffs had not been operating a motor vehicle, there would
not have been an accident, injuries, and damages. The operation of a motor vehicle was a
necessary component giving rise to plaintiffs' cause of action, and there was a nexus between
their damages and the operation of a motor vehicle.
Even if construction were required, the Legislature clearly intended such a result
regardless of the fact that the potentially liable road commission was not operating a motor
vehicle at the time of the accident. In Jonas v Carissimi, 219 Mich App 546, 552; 557 NW2d
148 (1996), this Court stated:
In Ullery v Sobie, 196 Mich App 76, 80; 492 NW2d 739 (1992), this
Court, while upholding the constitutionality of the five-percent cap, determined
that its purpose was "to prevent the injured party from recovering substantially
less based solely on the failure to wear a safety belt." Similarly, this Court in
Thompson v Fitzpatrick, 199 Mich App 5, 8; 501 NW2d 172 (1993), held that the
five-percent cap was "intended by the Legislature to protect plaintiffs against
drastic reduction in damage awards."
The Senate Bill Analysis regarding supporting arguments for the 1985 amendment of
MCL 257.710e indicated that "seat belt use saves lives and reduces the number and severity of
-10-
injuries. Experience has shown that mandatory seat belt laws produce a significant and lasting
increase in the use of seat belts, even when enforcement is relaxed." Senate Analysis, SB 6,
February 26, 1985.
It is abundantly clear that the Legislature intended to encourage all drivers to wear their
seat belts for purposes of public safety and to limit attacks on damage awards based on
comparative negligence where a defendant is negligent. We fail to see how the Legislature's
intent would be furthered in any conceivable manner by limiting application of the damage
reduction cap to situations involving a defendant's liability for operating a motor vehicle. It
would be nonsensical to conclude that the Legislature intended to protect drivers from the
horrific results of vehicle accidents where safety belts are not worn, but only where at least two
motor vehicles are involved, i.e., where the occupants of a vehicle are injured through the
negligence of a driver of another vehicle.14 Such a reading is contrary to the legislative intent
and inconsistent with the plain language of the statute.
Affirmed.
Hood, P.J., concurred.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Harold Hood
14
The Michigan Constitution provides that political power is inherent in the people and that
government "is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection." Const 1963, art 1, § 1.
Our constitution further provides that "[t]he legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection
and promotion of the public health." Const 1963, art 4, § 51. With these principles in mind, we
cannot conceive of any rationale for the Legislature not to have been equally concerned with
vehicles involved in accidents where the vehicles strike animals, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
inanimate objects, or simply where a vehicle caroms out of control. Statutes should be construed
in a manner to prevent absurd results. Camden v Kaufman, 240 Mich App 389, 395; 613 NW2d
335 (2000). We recognize that the absurd result method of statutory interpretation plays no role
when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous. People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 155159; 599 NW2d 102 (1999). However, in this part of our analysis, we are merely assuming that
judicial construction is necessary because of supposed ambiguities; therefore, the absurd results
doctrine would be applicable. We reemphasize our position that the statute, as written, is clear
and unambiguous and applies to the case before us today.
-11-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
