{concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the majority opinion of this Court. I also concur in Justice Kelly’s partial concurrence and partial dissent. I write separately only to note my continuing disagreement with the principles expressed ante at 167-168.1 disagree that governmental immunity exists in instances where design defects or conditions that are outside the actual roadbed make a road unreasonably unsafe for public travel. See Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 504; 638 NW2d 396 (2002) (KELLY, J., dissenting); Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 188; 615 NW2d 702 (2000) (KELLY, J., dissenting). While these principles are not implicated in the present case, the majority’s affirmation of them necessitates this statement.