Bernardoni v. City of Saginaw
499 Mich. 470
| Mich. | 2016Background
- Sue Bernardoni tripped on a 2.5-inch vertical discontinuity between adjacent sidewalk slabs in the City of Saginaw and sued the city under the highway exception to governmental immunity (claiming the defect existed and was known or should have been known at least 30 days before the injury).
- At deposition Bernardoni testified she did not know how long the defect had existed.
- The only evidence submitted to oppose summary disposition was three photographs, taken by plaintiff’s husband, of the sidewalk condition about 30 days after the accident (two photos included a ruler for scale).
- The trial court granted the city’s motion for summary disposition (did not specify the rule). The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the photos could create a factual dispute about whether the defect existed and was readily apparent for at least 30 days.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave, reviewed the record de novo, and considered whether the post-accident photos alone created a genuine issue of material fact under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether photographs taken ~30 days after the fall create a genuine issue that the sidewalk defect existed at least 30 days before the injury (statutory prerequisite under MCL 691.1402a(2)) | Photos showing the defect and accumulated debris support an inference the defect was longstanding and therefore existed for the required period | Photos only show post-accident condition; without additional evidence they do not prove the defect existed 30+ days earlier | Photos alone are insufficient; no genuine issue of material fact — summary disposition proper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (sets de novo review and MCR 2.116(C)(10) standards)
- Robinson v. City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (interpreting 30-day notice requirement for sidewalk defects)
- Spiek v. Department of Transportation, 456 Mich 331 (use of materials outside pleadings precludes ruling under MCR 2.116(C)(8))
- Cruz v. Saginaw, 370 Mich 476 (existence and duration of defect generally a question of fact)
- Beamon v. Highland Park, 85 Mich App 242 (post-incident proof of defect alone insufficient to infer long-standing or notorious condition)