JOANNE ROWLAND V NORTHFIELD TWP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JOANNE ROWLAND, a/k/a JOAN ROWLAND
UNPUBLISHED
December 13, 2005
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 253210
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 03-000128 – NO
v
WASHTENAW COUNTY ROAD
COMMISSION,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Zahra and Kelly, JJ.
KELLY, J. (concurring).
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to note that I agree with defendant
that the trial court erred in denying summary disposition because plaintiff failed to give timely or
adequate notice of her claim as required by the plain language of MCL 691.1406. “The
Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning it has plainly expressed, and if the
expressed language is clear, judicial construction is not permitted and the statute must be
enforced as written.” Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 748; 641 NW2d 567
(2002). “Courts may not rewrite the plain language of the statute and substitute their own policy
decisions for those already made by the Legislature.” DiBenedetto v West Shore Hosp, 461 Mich
394; 405; 605 NW2d 300 (2000). Nonetheless, as the majority notes, both this Court and the
trial court are bound by our Supreme Court precedent, which holds that if the governmental
entity suffered no actual prejudice as a result of the failure of notice, then a plaintiff may still
pursue a claim despite noncompliance with the notice provision. Brown v Manistee Co Rd
Comm, 452 Mich 354; 550 NW2d 215 (1996); Hobbs v Michigan State Hwy Dep’t, 398 Mich 90;
247 NW2d 754 (1976).
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-1-
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.
