The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)



 

STATE OF MICHIGAN

MIKE COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE:

ACCIDENT REPORTING:

Responsibility for preparing accident reports

Section 622 of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.622, requires a police officer who receives a report of an accident involving a motor vehicle to prepare and forward a report of the accident to the Director of the Department of State Police on prescribed forms, if the accident results in death or injury or if the officer reasonably believes that property was damaged to an apparent extent totaling $1,000 or more.

Opinion No. 7170

February 7, 2005

Honorable Rick Shaffer
State Representative
The Capitol
Lansing, MI

You ask if section 622 of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.622, requires a police officer to prepare a motor vehicle accident report where the officer reasonably believes that the accident involves less than $1,000 in damage to property. Your question suggests a need for guidance involving the duty of a police officer to prepare a report when there is a disagreement between the officer and the driver of the vehicle regarding whether the value of the property damage involved is less than $1,000.

Michigan law requires the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident to report the accident if: (1) a person is injured; (2) a person is killed; or (3) there is apparent property damage of at least $1,000:

The driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident that injures or kills any person, or that damages property to an apparent extent totaling $1,000.00 or more, shall immediately report that accident at the nearest or most convenient police station, or to the nearest or most convenient police officer. [MCL 257.622.]

Section 622 further requires a police officer to prepare and forward a report of a reportable accident to the Director of the Department of State Police, who is responsible for compiling the information received:

The officer receiving the report, or his or her commanding officer, shall immediately forward each report to the director of the department of state police on forms prescribed by the director of the department of state police. The forms shall be completed in full by the investigating officer. The director of the department of state police shall analyze each report relative to the cause of the reported accident and shall prepare information compiled from reports filed under this section for public use. [MCL 257.622.]

Moreover, section 622 requires the police agency to maintain a copy of the report for at least three years:

A copy of the report under this section and copies of reports required under section 621 shall be retained for at least 3 years at the local police department, sheriff's department, or local state police post making the report. [MCL 257.622.]

Section 621 of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.621, is the corresponding reporting provision for a driver who causes damage to "fixtures" on or adjacent to the highway, such as guardrails, signs, or light poles. MCL 257.621 does not contain a minimum property value damage requirement for reporting purposes. Thus, under MCL 257.621 and 257.622, the Department of State Police is required to compile information regarding accidents for public use.

The text of MCL 257.622 does not make clear whether the police officer may make an independent assessment of the damage to property involved in the accident or whether the judgment of the driver who makes the report is determinative on this point. Where an ambiguity exists, it is proper to effectuate the Legislature's intent by giving statutory language a reasonable construction that best accomplishes the purpose and object of the statute. Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v Marlette Homes, Inc, 456 Mich 511, 515; 573 NW2d 611 (1998). The purpose of MCL 257.622 is to apprise the police that an accident has occurred and to provide statistical information concerning the number and causes of accidents. People v Schmidt, 196 Mich App 104, 107; 492 NW2d 509 (1992), citing People v Morgan, 24 Mich App 604, 606; 180 NW2d 508 (1970).

Section 622 of the Vehicle Code imposes two distinct duties. The first is on the motorist to notify the police of any accident involving a death, injury, or apparent damage to property totaling at least $1,000. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor under section 901 of the Vehicle Code, MCL 257.901. Schmidt, 196 Mich App at 105, n 1. The second duty is imposed on the responding officer to forward each report to the Director of the Department of State Police on "forms prescribed" by the Director. The form currently in use, commonly referred to as the "UD-10," instructs the reporting officer that the criteria for a reportable crash are that the accident "resulted in death, injury, or property damage of $1,000 or more (effective January 1, 2004)." [UD-10 Traffic Crash Report Instruction Manual, 2004 Edition, p 11.]

When the Vehicle Code was originally enacted in 1949, no reporting threshold for property damage existed. Instead, the law required a report to be made whenever a vehicle involved in an accident was "incapable of being propelled in the usual manner." 1949 PA 300. The law was amended in 1967 to require a report whenever the property damage caused by the accident totaled $200 or more. 1967 PA 3. In subsequent years, the statute was amended to increase the property damage threshold reporting amount to $400 and then to the present $1,000 in 2003 PA 66.

According to the House Fiscal Agency Legislative Analysis of the bill that was passed into law as 2003 PA 66, the problem that 2003 PA 66 was apparently enacted to address was that the former $400 reporting amount threshold did not reflect inflation or the rising costs of new automobiles. To the extent individuals were required to report relatively minor "fender benders" or low impact accidents, police officers were filling out accident reports that would not have been required had the rate of inflation been factored into the threshold. The testimony received at the hearings on the bill and an identical predecessor bill demonstrated that it had become increasingly evident that police officers' time and resources could be better spent on more important public safety issues. Moreover, testimony indicated that the "police can give people an alternate accident reporting number to submit to their insurance companies for insurance purposes, so raising the property damage threshold would not mean that people involved in low impact auto accidents would have greater difficulty in substantiating their auto insurance claims." House Legislative Analysis, HB 4238, March 26, 2003, p 2.

Information that you supplied with your request suggests that section 622 should not be read to authorize a responding officer to decline to complete a traffic accident report if the driver estimates the value of property damage involved to be $1,000 or more, even if the officer reasonably estimates the damage is less than $1,000. To best effectuate the purpose and object of section 622, however, it is important to recall that two separate and distinct duties are identified in this section � the duty of the driver to alert authorities to an accident and the duty of the officer to assure that accidents meeting certain criteria are accounted for in a system designed to collect statistical data used to enhance public safety. These purposes would not be served by requiring an officer to prepare and forward a report where the informed and experienced judgment of that officer is that damage of less than $1,000 is involved. Relieving officers of the time and expense of completing forms in relatively minor low impact accidents is exactly what the higher threshold reporting amount was enacted to accomplish.

With respect to the driver's duty to report the accident in the first instance, on the other hand, the estimation of property damage is one reasonably vested in the driver alone, particularly where the driver assumes the risk of prosecution for failure to report the accident if the threshold reporting amount is later determined to have been met. See Schmidt, 196 Mich App at 108 (driver's conviction overturned where record failed to show proof that damage to vehicle met threshold amount and extent of damage was apparent).

Additional support for this interpretation is found in the language of section 622 providing that the report is to be compiled on "forms prescribed by the director of the department of state police." The Legislature has left the manner in which the accident data is to be collected and the content of the forms to the sound discretion of the Director. It would be unreasonable to define the officer's duty to fill out the UD-10 form as one involving the mere repetition of the driver's statements, at least with respect to data involving independent observation of conditions or circumstances.1  It is the product of what the officer is told and what the officer observes that constitutes the "report" that the officer has a duty to forward to the Director. The officer necessarily exercises discretion and is not bound by the statements of the reporting driver in determining whether a report must be forwarded to the Director.

It is my opinion, therefore, that section 622 of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.622, requires a police officer who receives a report of an accident involving a motor vehicle to prepare and forward a report of the accident to the Director of the Department of State Police on prescribed forms, if the accident results in death or injury or if the officer reasonably believes that property was damaged to an apparent extent totaling $1,000 or more.

MIKE COX
Attorney General

1For example, among the information included on the UD-10 is the type of road involved, whether the accident involved alcohol or special circumstances, the location of the greatest damage to the vehicle, the extent of damage, and the weather.