Kerkstra v. State Highway Department

Michigan Court of Appeals

Kerkstra v. State Highway Department

231 N.W.2d 521, 60 Mich. App. 761, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1496

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 28, 1975

DocketDocket 21007

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 231 N.W.2d 521 (Kerkstra v. State Highway Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kerkstra v. State Highway Department, 231 N.W.2d 521, 60 Mich. App. 761, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1496 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought suit for damages arising out of an automobile accident which occurred at the intersection of an exit ramp from US-131 and Wealthy Street in the City of Grand Rapids on May 6, 1972. The plaintiffs decedent was killed when his automobile was struck by another vehicle allegedly due to the defendants’ negligence in the design, construction and maintenance of the intersection. Complaint was filed on January 29, 1974. The Court of Claims granted defendants’ motion for an accelerated judgment because the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirement of the Court of Claims Act, MCLA 600.6431(1); MSA 27A.6431G).

The parties and the lower court proceeded on the assumption that the Court of Claims Act controlled in this case, and on appeal, arguments as to the constitutionality and the proper implementation of the act are advanced. However, this Court has recently held that under facts indistinguishable from those in the present case, the general highway statute, specifically MCLA 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102), is controlling. Zimmer v State Highway Dept, 60 Mich App 769; 231 NW2d 519 (1975), citing Hobbs v Michigan State Highway Department, 58 Mich App 189; 227 NW2d 286 (1975). Consequently, because the claim was filed within the appropriate two-year limitation period, MCLA 691.1411(2); MSA 3.996(111)(2), the accelerated judgment entered in the defendants’ favor must be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. No costs, a public question.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought suit for damages arising out of an automobile accident which occurred at the intersection of an exit ramp from US-131 and Wealthy Street in the City of Grand Rapids on May 6, 1972. The plaintiffs decedent was killed when his automobile was struck by another vehicle allegedly due to the defendants’ negligence in the design, construction and maintenance of the intersection. Complaint was filed on January 29, 1974. The Court of Claims granted defendants’ motion for an accelerated judgment because the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirement of the Court of Claims Act, MCLA 600.6431(1); MSA 27A.6431G).

The parties and the lower court proceeded on the assumption that the Court of Claims Act controlled in this case, and on appeal, arguments as to the constitutionality and the proper implementation of the act are advanced. However, this Court has recently held that under facts indistinguishable from those in the present case, the general highway statute, specifically MCLA 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102), is controlling. Zimmer v State Highway Dept, 60 Mich App 769; 231 NW2d 519 (1975), citing Hobbs v Michigan State Highway Department, 58 Mich App 189; 227 NW2d 286 (1975). Consequently, because the claim was filed within the appropriate two-year limitation period, MCLA 691.1411(2); MSA 3.996(111)(2), the accelerated judgment entered in the defendants’ favor must be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. No costs, a public question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 N.W.2d 521, 60 Mich. App. 761, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerkstra-v-state-highway-department-michctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack