Estate of Sandra Greer v. Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
345698
Mich. Ct. App.Feb 18, 2020Background
- Abraham and Sandra Greer alleged repeated sewer backups into their Detroit basement over ~20+ years, causing property damage, severe mold, and contributing to Sandra’s death; Abraham sued DWSD for negligence and inverse condemnation.
- DWSD inspected the main sewer multiple times (2000–2011) and repeatedly told the Greers the main line had no failed or blocked sections and that private service leads were the owners’ responsibility.
- Independent contractor IWPC inspected in 2006 and 2012; IWPC reported severe root infiltration at several service connections downstream of the Greers and in 2012 recommended and performed CIPP lining to “permanently curb the root growth in [the] main sewer.”
- Photographs from 2012 showed heavy root blockages at downstream service connections; neighbor Ensley experienced long-term backups that resolved after the 2012 repairs, but the Greers’ backups reportedly continued.
- Plaintiff presented environmental testing and remediation quotes showing extensive mold contamination linked to the backups; DWSD moved for summary disposition asserting governmental immunity under the sewage-disposal-system-event exception and other defenses; trial court denied the motion and DWSD appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Greer’s Argument | DWSD’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sewer system had a “defect” under MCL 691.1416(e) (construction, design, maintenance, operation, or repair defect) | IWPC reports/photos show severe root infiltration in sewers and IWPC’s 2012 reconstruction indicates a defect in the main sewer | DWSD contends roots were in private service leads (property owners’ responsibility) and prior DWSD televising found no main-line failures | Court: Issue of fact exists — reasonable minds could differ whether root infiltration in the main sewer was a maintenance defect; denial of summary disposition affirmed |
| Whether DWSD failed to take reasonable steps in a reasonable time to repair the defect (MCL 691.1417(3)(d)) | IWPC identified heavy roots as early as 2006 and more severe infiltration by 2012; six-year delay before major remediation could be unreasonable | DWSD points to its 2012 repairs and prior investigations showing no main-line defects | Court: Question of fact exists whether DWSD delayed unreasonably given earlier evidence of root infiltration; denial of summary disposition affirmed |
| Whether the sewer defect was a substantial proximate cause (≥50%) of the Greers’ property damage | Circumstantial evidence (IWPC reports/photos, neighbor’s resolved backups after 2012) supports inference main-line roots caused backups | DWSD cites repeated inspections that found no main-line obstruction and the likelihood that the Greers’ private service lead caused backups | Court: Causation is a factual question; reasonable factfinder could find main-line root infiltration was a substantial proximate cause; denial affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff linked Sandra’s medical conditions/death to sewer defect (personal-injury claim) | Alleged mold exposure from backups caused or aggravated Sandra’s conditions leading to death | DWSD argues insufficient evidence of causation | Court: Issue not preserved for appeal (DWSD didn’t raise it below); appellate court declines to consider it on this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon Twp v. Rockford Pub. Sch., 311 Mich. App. 403 (elements for sewage-disposal-system-event exception and summary-disposition framework)
- Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 271 Mich. App. 38 (sewage-disposal-system-event exception; obstruction can be a defect regardless of fault)
- Pierce v. Lansing, 265 Mich. App. 174 (de novo review of governmental-immunity questions)
- Plunkett v. Dep’t of Transp., 286 Mich. App. 168 (scope of governmental immunity)
- Lash v. Traverse City, 479 Mich. 180 (legislative scheme: exceptions are sole waiver of immunity)
- Karbel v. Comerica Bank, 247 Mich. App. 90 (circumstantial evidence may suffice)
- Yoost v. Caspari, 295 Mich. App. 209 (circumstantial proof must permit reasonable inferences, not mere speculation)
- Walters v. Nadell, 481 Mich. 377 (preservation of issues for appeal)
- People v. Frazier, 478 Mich. 231 (appellate review of unpreserved issues is disfavored)
- Electro-Tech, Inc. v. H.F. Campbell Co., 433 Mich. 57 (constitutional claims, e.g., inverse-condemnation, not barred by governmental immunity)
- Wiggins v. Burton, 291 Mich. App. 532 (acknowledging constitutional claims fall outside governmental-immunity defense)