(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the conclusion that the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the ground of governmental immunity because "[t]he highway exception specifically excepts the state and counties from liability for defects in crosswalks, the defect alleged by the plaintiff . . . Ante, p 135 (opinion of Boyle, J.). I write separately to distance myself from the dicta contained in my sister’s opinion: "The highway exception abrogates governmental immunity at 'points of special danger to motorists Id. (citations omitted). The instant case can be decided on the basis of the highway exception’s specific exclusion of crosswalks.