Bill Summary – FastDemocracy

Legislative Analysis
                                                                          Phone: (517) 373-8080
IMMUNITY OF COUNTY ROAD AGENCIES FOR                                      http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A HIGHWAY
                                                                          Analysis available at
House Bill 4940 as introduced                                             http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Sponsor: Rep. Nate Shannon
House Bill 4941 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Graham Filler
Committee: Transportation, Mobility and Infrastructure
Complete to 9-25-23
SUMMARY:
       There are currently two statutes that address the liability of county road commissions for
       injury caused by a failure to maintain highways under their jurisdiction to a “reasonably
       safe” standard. Section 21 of 1909 PA 283, known as the county road law, deals specifically
       with highway negligence actions against county road agencies. Section 2 of 1964 PA 170,
       known as the governmental immunity law, deals with highway negligence actions against
       “a governmental agency having jurisdiction over a highway.”
       House Bill 4940 would amend section 21 of the county road law to clarify provisions
       regarding the liability of counties for injuries that result from a failure by the county to
       maintain highways under county jurisdiction to a “reasonably safe” standard. The bill
       would make explicit provisions of current law that effectively make certain provisions of
       the governmental immunity law applicable to county road commissions. The bill also
       would remove provisions establishing the procedure and notice requirements for filing a
       claim for injury.
       MCL 224.21
       House Bill 4941 would amend section 2 of the governmental immunity law to remove a
       reference to section 21 of the county road law.
       MCL 691.1402
       The bills are tie-barred together, which means that neither bill could take effect unless both
       bills were enacted.
BACKGROUND:
       Section 21(2) of the county road law provides that a county must keep in reasonable repair,
       so that they are reasonably safe and convenient for public travel, all roads, bridges, and
       culverts under county jurisdiction, under county care and control, and open to public travel.
       The section goes on to indicate that “provisions of law respecting the liability of townships,
House Fiscal Agency                                                                         Page 1 of 3
         cities, villages, and corporations” for damages resulting from failure to maintain roads
         under their control to the “reasonably safe” standard also apply to counties “adopting the
         county road system”— effectively all 83 counties.
         The phrase “provisions of law respecting liability of townships, cities, villages, and
         corporations” refers to the governmental immunity law and specifically to provisions in
         section 2 of that act regarding liability of governmental agencies for injury or damages
         resulting from failure to maintain a highway to a reasonably safe and fit for travel standard. 1
         The governmental immunity law provides a general immunity of a governmental agency
         from tort liability if the agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental
         function. The act also provides specific exceptions from this general standard and
         conditions for those exceptions. Tort liability for certain highway negligence claims, under
         specific conditions, is one of the exceptions to the general standard of governmental
         immunity.
         House Bills 4940 and 4941 are substantively identical to Senate Bills 39 and 43,
         respectively, of the 2021-22 legislative session. Those bills were passed by the Senate and
         House and ordered enrolled, but were pocket vetoed and did not take effect. 2
BRIEF DISCUSSION:
         The bills would have little or no effect on the liability of county road commissions for
         injuries caused by failure to maintain highways under road commission jurisdiction to
         “reasonably safe” standard. The primary effect of the bills relates to notice and process
         requirements. If the bills were enacted, the current notice and process requirements under
         the county road law would be repealed, and claims filed against county road commissions
         for injury caused by failure to maintain highways to a “reasonably safe” standard would
         have to follow the same notice and process requirements as under section 2 of the
         governmental immunity law.
         The bills are offered to resolve confusion as to which statute governs the notice and process
         requirements for negligence actions taken against county road agencies. The question of
         which statute governs was the subject of a 2021 Michigan Supreme Court opinion, Estate
         of Brendon Pearce v Eaton County Road Commission. 3
1
  The county road law uses “county” to also mean county road commission. The section’s reference to “townships”
appears to be an anachronism; townships no longer have jurisdiction over public roads. The reference to “corporations”
apparently means municipal corporations, although this is not specified. The governmental immunity law defines
“municipal corporation” as “a city, village, or township or a combination of two or more of these when acting jointly.”)
2
  If the governor does not sign a bill within 14 days after getting it and the legislature has adjourned to end the session,
the bill does not take effect and is said to have been “pocket vetoed.” Senate Bills 39 and 43 were was pocket vetoed
on January 11, 2023, when still unsigned having been presented to the governor on December 28, 2022, which was
also the date the legislature adjourned sine die (without day) to end the legislative session.
3
  https://www.courts.michigan.gov/496b22/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/sct/158069_74_01.pdf
House Fiscal Agency                                                      HBs 4940 and 4941 as introduced        Page 2 of 3
FISCAL IMPACT:
       As noted above, the bills would have little or no effect on the liability of county road
       commissions for injuries caused by failure to maintain highways under road commission
       jurisdiction to a “reasonably safe” standard. The primary effect of the bills has to do with
       the notice and process requirements. The bills would have no fiscal impact on state
       government (i.e., the Michigan Department of Transportation) or on cities and villages.
       The liability of those road agencies for highway negligence claims is already governed by
       the provisions of the governmental immunity law.
                                                         Legislative Analyst: E. Best
                                                              Fiscal Analyst: William E. Hamilton
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency                                         HBs 4940 and 4941 as introduced   Page 3 of 3
Statutes affected: 
House Introduced Bill: 691.1402