DANFORD R LOY V MACOMB CNTY ROAD COMM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DANFORD R. LOY, as Next Friend of RONALD
LOY, a Minor,
UNPUBLISHED
October 3, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF MACOMB, a/k/a
MACOMB COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,
No. 185676
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 91-002886
Defendant-Appellee,
and
BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF MACOMB, a/k/a
MACOMB COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v
VINCENZO CESARIO and ROBIN CESARIO,
Third-Party Defendants.
Before: Corrigan, P.J., and Taylor and D. A. Johnston*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. We
affirm.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Ronald Loy, a minor, sustained serious injuries when he was struck by a vehicle being driven by
an intoxicated driver as Loy returned from retrieving a ball. A lawsuit was filed against defendant Road
Commission alleging a violation of its statutory obligation to maintain a reasonably safe roadway as a
result of failing to conduct traffic surveys and maintenance of an excessively high speed limit. MCL
691.1402(2); MSA 3.996(102)(2). It was further asserted that the excessive speed limit was a
proximate cause of the accident. As the result of an interlocutory appeal, this Court remanded the case
to the trial court for reconsideration of a motion for summary disposition that defendant had filed in light
of Mason v Wayne Co Board of Commissioners, 447 Mich 130; 523 NW2d 791 (1994), modified
451 Mich 1236 (1996). Thereafter, the trial court granted defendant summary disposition pursuant to
Mason.
In Mason, the Michigan Supreme Court explored the scope of the highway exception to
governmental immunity. The Court recognized the existence of governmental immunity in the context of
an accident between a pedestrian and a motor vehicle that had occurred on a crosswalk within "the
improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel.” As a result, the Mason Court
concluded:
Pedestrians who trek upon Michigan highways must and do venture beyond the
protective mandates of MCL 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1). …Pedestrians are
situated differently than vehicular traffic. …
This legislative line drawing is also explicable on the ground that expanding the
right to sue past a certain point does not prevent accidents, and amounts to nothing
more than an expanded obligation to pay. The Legislature may well have concluded
that governmental liability for injuries to pedestrians crossing the street will not enhance
vehicular safety. Id. at 137-138.
In addition, the Court noted that "[p]edestrians crossing outside crosswalks face the additional hurdle of
comparative negligence." Id. at 136, n 5.
More recently, in Suttles v Dep’t of Transportation, 216 Mich App 166, 171-172; 548
NW2d 671 (1996), leave granted 454 Mich 893 (1997), this Court stated that Mason was directed
broadly toward the proposition that pedestrian accidents on highways generally fall outside the scope of
the highway exception to governmental immunity. Applicable here is the following statement from
Suttles:
It is hard to imagine that the Legislature would have accorded greater protection
to jaywalking pedestrians on highways, walking outside of crosswalks, than is accorded
to pedestrians walking within such crosswalks. Id. at 172.
Mason and Suttles indicate that pedestrians trekking on highways do so without the ability to claim a
violation of the highway exception to governmental immunity. We further indicate that we find nothing in
Pick v Szymczak, 451 Mich 607; 548 NW2d 603 (1996), which calls Mason’s holding vis-à-vis
pedestrians into question.
Affirmed.
-2
/s/ Maura D. Corrigan
/s/ Clifford W. Taylor
/s/ Donald A. Johnston
-3
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.
