Opinion
No. 104498.
September 27, 1996.
Leave to Appeal Denied September 27, 1996:
Court of Appeals No. 173712.
We would grant leave to appeal.
Reconsideration denied November 22, 1996.
I would grant reconsideration and leave to appeal for the reasons stated in my earlier statement ante.
I would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.
I would grant leave to appeal.
Goad was injured on November 17, 1989, after another car lost control on M-21 near Owosso when it hit a patch of ice and collided with the plaintiff's car. A snowstorm had fallen the previous two days, with the Highway Department plowing and salting until early on the morning of the 17th.
Goad alleged the department negligently salted M-21, making it more dangerous than it would have been had the department done nothing. The trial court granted the department's motion for summary disposition, citing the "natural accumulation doctrine." The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.
Assuming the department had no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice, the question presented is whether the department created an unnatural accumulation of snow or ice. The Court of Appeals has ruled that an unnatural accumulation subjects the department to liability. See, e.g., Dykstra v Dep't of Transportation.
208 Mich. App. 390 (1995).
Summary disposition is not appropriate unless all reasonable persons would agree that the department did not create an unnatural accumulation. Goad presented expert testimony that the department was negligent, causing the road to be less safe than if the department had done nothing. The department's salt truck driver acknowledged he used only a small amount of salt that morning on M-21.
The issue of the reach of the natural accumulation doctrine is recurring, and is of jurisprudential importance.
See LEVIN, J., dissenting from denial of leave to appeal in Bonnau v Dep't of Transportation, 450 Mich. 983 (1996).