Kathrine Curtis v. City of Charlevoix
328456
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Plaintiff tripped on a tree grate in a paved walkway running through the City of Charlevoix municipal parking lot and injured her ankle.
- The walkway connected at its ends to two parallel public streets (Antrim and Mason) and ran perpendicular to them; plaintiff described walking “through the … municipal parking lot” and falling on the “sidewalk within the parking lot.”
- Defendant city moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing governmental immunity applied because the walkway was not a sidewalk “adjacent to” a public highway within the highway exception (MCL 691.1402).
- The trial court denied summary disposition, relying on a dictionary definition of “adjacent” and finding the walkway was “lying near or close to” the public streets.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and concluded prior caselaw requires that a statutory “sidewalk” run alongside a road; a walkway through a parking lot that does not run alongside the road is not a sidewalk for purposes of the highway exception.
- The Court reversed, holding the highway exception did not apply and remanded with instructions to grant summary disposition for the city.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the walkway where plaintiff fell is a “sidewalk” adjacent to a public highway under MCL 691.1401(f)/1402 | The walkway is part of the interconnected sidewalk system, is near the streets, and thus is "adjacent" to public roads | The walkway is inside a parking lot and does not run alongside the public roads, so it is not a statutory "sidewalk" and highway exception does not apply | Walkway is not a statutory "sidewalk" because it does not run alongside the roadway; highway exception inapplicable; summary disposition for city required |
| Proper interpretive method for “adjacent” and “sidewalk” | Rely on dictionary definition of "adjacent" (near or close) to find coverage | Follow binding caselaw construing "sidewalk" as a pedestrian path along the side of a road; orientation to roadway controls, not mere proximity | Court erred in relying on dictionary meaning; controlling precedent requires the pedestrian way run alongside the road, not merely be near it |
| Whether factual allegations that walkway might serve as a through street (making it a public highway) could avoid immunity | Plaintiff argued the parking lot might be a street/throughway, making the walkway part of a highway system | Defendant noted complaint pleaded walking "through a parking lot," not that it was a public street; plaintiff did not plead facts avoiding immunity | Court declined to consider the alternative street/throughway theory because it was not properly pleaded; accepted complaint facts for summary-disposition review |
Key Cases Cited
- Hatch v. Grand Haven Charter Twp., 461 Mich. 457 (2000) (statutory exceptions to governmental immunity must be clearly within scope of the statute)
- Stabley v. Huron–Clinton Metro Park Auth., 228 Mich. App. 363 (1998) (a “sidewalk” is a pedestrian path that runs along the side of a road; path not alongside road is not a statutory sidewalk)
- Haaksma v. Grand Rapids, 247 Mich. App. 44 (2001) (walkway running between streets and adjacent to a parking lot is not a sidewalk along a roadway for highway-exception purposes)