In Nuculovic v Hill, a published opinion, the Court of Appeals barred plaintiff's claim for failure to provide notice within the 60-day timeframe established by the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act of 1967, MCL § 124.401 et seq.  This is the second transit related appellate decision in the past month that narrowly construed MCL 124.419. See our discussion of Pollard v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation here.

House Approves Funding from Eaton County Transportation Authority and Other Local Entities

On December 11, 2009 the U.S. House of Representatives approved an appropriations bill that provides federal funding for the Eaton County Transportation Authority.  The legislation, pushed in large part by Congressman Mark Schauer, includes $1,000,000 for the Eaton County Transportation Authority (EATRAN).  The funding allocated to EATRAN in this legislation will allow EATRAN to purchase additional transportation vehicles and upgrade its current equipment.   EATRAN serves the citizens of Eaton County by providing curb-to-curb public transportation in areas such as Delta Township, Grand Ledge, Charlotte, Eaton Rapids, Olivet, and other Eaton County cities.

Court of Appeals Rejects "Actual Prejudice" Test and Requires Regional Transit Authorities to Receive Written Notice of Injury Claim

In Pollard v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), No. 288851, the Court of Appeals - reversing prior authority that failure to provide written notice was not fatal unless the authority could show actual prejudice from the lack of written notice held that the trial court improperly denied summary disposition because the statute clearly requires written notice within 60 days, which the plaintiff did not provide.