ROBERT S MOSER II V CITY OF DETROIT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ROBERT S. MOSER, II,
FOR PUBLICATION
June 23, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 283922
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 06-629396-NP
CITY OF DETROIT and WAYNE COUNTY,
Defendants,
Advance Sheets Version
and
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Meter and Servitto, JJ.
WILDER, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would conclude that the bridge fascia is not a part of “improved
portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel” within the meaning of MCL 691.1402(1).
As the majority notes, in Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 91; 715 NW2d
275 (2006), the Michigan Supreme Court held that “only the travel lanes of a highway are
subject to the duty of repair and maintenance specified in MCL 691.1402(1).” The Supreme
Court had previously held in Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 162; 615 NW2d
702 (2000), that “if the condition is not located in the actual roadbed designed for vehicular
travel, the narrowly drawn highway exception is inapplicable . . . .” Id. at 180. The term
“roadbed” is defined as “the material of which a road is composed.” Random House Webster’s
College Dictionary (2001). The Supreme Court’s reference to “travel lanes” and “roadbed”
make clear that only the portion of the road upon which vehicles are driven is subject to the
narrowly drawn highway exception. Nawrocki, supra at 180. Vehicles are not driven on the
fascia of a bridge. As such, plaintiff has failed to show a defect in the improved portion of the
highway that would subject the state to liability in this case. I would reverse.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
