897 N.W.2d 248
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- In March 2011 Milot’s car struck a dislodged manhole cover, rolled over, and she sustained neck injuries and alleged subsequent memory loss.
- Milot served a notice of intent to sue the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) within 120 days but did not name two persons (Gail Gay and Ashley Anger) who later would testify about her post-accident condition; neither witnessed the accident itself.
- MDOT moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing the highway exception (MCL 691.1404) requires listing all known witnesses to Milot’s injuries in the notice.
- Milot contended MCL 691.1404(1) requires naming only witnesses to the occurrence of the accident, not every person with knowledge of subsequent injury effects.
- The trial court agreed with Milot and denied MDOT’s motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the statute requires naming witnesses to the occurrence itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 691.1404(1) requires naming witnesses who have knowledge only of the plaintiff’s subsequent injuries (not the accident) | Milot: statute requires listing only witnesses to the occurrence of the injury/defect; non-witnesses to the accident need not be listed | MDOT: statute requires listing the names of all witnesses known who can attest to the extent of injuries, even if they did not witness the accident | Court: "names of the witnesses" means those who witnessed the occurrence of the injury/defect (the accident); Anger and Gay need not be listed |
| Whether omission of non-accident witnesses from the notice renders the notice defective and mandates dismissal | Milot: omission of persons who did not witness the accident does not make notice defective | MDOT: failure to list known witnesses to injury is a defective notice requiring summary disposition | Court: omission of persons who only have knowledge of post-accident injury effects does not render notice defective under MCL 691.1404(1) |
| Whether MCL 691.1404(2)’s requirement to produce witnesses conflicts with a narrow reading of "witnesses" in §1404(1) | Milot: §1404(2) does not expand §1404(1); production requirement concerns witnesses to the occurrence | MDOT: production requirement supports a broader reading that includes those who can testify to extent of injury | Court: no conflict — §1404(2) concerns producing witnesses to the accident if requested and aids investigation/remedy |
| Whether precedent (Rule v Bay City) should be overruled or is necessary to the decision | Milot: Rule supports that mere presence is not being a witness; reliance appropriate | MDOT: argued Rule was wrongly decided (should not control) | Court: declined to resolve Rule’s correctness but found statutory text adequate; did not overrule Rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Washtenaw Co. Rd. Comm., 477 Mich. 197 (statutory construction and summary disposition standard)
- Glancy v. City of Roseville, 457 Mich. 580 (highway-maintenance exception to governmental immunity)
- Burise v. City of Pontiac, 282 Mich. App. 646 (notice purpose: investigation and remedy defect; omission of known witness renders notice defective)
- Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights, 296 Mich. App. 387 (govermental immunity/exception construction principles)
- Robinson v. City of Lansing, 486 Mich. 1 (statutes construed as a whole; read subsections together)
- In re Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Mich, 482 Mich. 90 (words grouped in a list have related meanings)
- Rule v. Bay City, 12 Mich. App. 503 (presence at scene alone does not make one a "witness")