Injury from Gravel

Excessive gravel on roads does not lead to liability for the road commission in Michigan.
Issues: Whether the trial court properly denied the defendant-Road Commission's motion for summary disposition in this case involving the "highway exception" to governmental immunity; MCL 691.1402; Whether the trial court properly held that a question of fact existed as to whether defendant had "notice" of the alleged defect; MCL 691.1403; Wilson v. Alpena Cnty Rd. Comm'n; LaMeau v. City of Royal Oak; Sweetman v. State Hwy. Dep't; Whether the gravel on the road came from a source other than defendant; Whether claims based on objects on a roadway or sidewalk are within the highway exception; Whether they are a "defect" in the actual roadway; Applicability of Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights, Estate of Buckner v. City of Lansing, and Plunkett v. Department of Transp.; Obstructions on a sidewalk or roadway; Wedderburn v. Detroit; Brown v. City of St. Johns; Joslyn v. Detroit; Defect or defective condition must be "within the paved or unpaved portion of the roadbed . . ." and "located in the improved portion of the highway"; Nawrocki v. Macomb Cnty. Rd. Comm'n; The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA)
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Case Name: Paletta v. Oakland Cnty. Rd. Comm'n
e-Journal Number: 51360
Judge(s): Young, Jr., Markman, M.B. Kelly, and Zahra; Voting to deny leave to appeal – Cavanagh, M. Kelly, and Hathaway

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment (see e-Journal # 49385 in the 8/22/11 edition), holding that the accumulation of gravel on the paved roadway was not actionable under the highway exception to the GTLA. The court concluded that "an accumulation of gravel, whether natural or otherwise, does not implicate the defendant's duty to maintain the highway in 'reasonable repair.'" The court remanded the case to the trial court for entry of an order granting the defendant-Road Commission summary disposition.