Lawrence Russell v. City of Detroit
321 Mich. App. 628
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 20, 2014 Russell fractured his leg when his motorcycle hit a pothole and crashed.
- In October 2014 Russell’s attorney sent a written notice to the City of Detroit describing the injury and roadway defect; plaintiff sued March 6, 2015.
- The City moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing Russell failed to comply with the GTLA notice requirement, MCL 691.1404(1).
- The City contended the notice was deficient because (1) it did not specify the exact location and nature of the defect and (2) it was sent by plaintiff’s attorney rather than by plaintiff personally.
- The trial court denied the City’s motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the notice satisfied MCL 691.1404(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the notice specified the "exact location" and "nature" of the defect under MCL 691.1404(1) | Russell: the notice identified intersection plus a landmark (manhole cover) and described a "large pothole," sufficient when read as a whole | City: identifying only an intersection is too vague to be the "exact location"; nature description insufficient | Court: Notice, read in full (location + nature), identified a manhole in the middle of the street adjacent to a large pothole at a named intersection — sufficient under statute |
| Whether an adult injured person must personally serve the notice or may have an attorney/agent do so | Russell: injured person may serve via agent/attorney; notice identified the injured person and stated it was provided on his behalf | City: statute says "injured person shall serve" and (by omission) does not authorize attorney service for adults — thus personal service required | Court: "serve" may be accomplished through an agent (including an attorney); statute does not require the injured person to personally mail or deliver the notice so long as the notice indicates it is given on the injured person’s behalf |
Key Cases Cited
- Nawrocki v. Macomb County Road Comm’n, 463 Mich 143 (Mich. 2000) (governmental immunity and highway exception context)
- Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road Comm’n, 477 Mich 197 (Mich. 2007) (statutory notice provisions must be enforced as written)
- Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich 378 (Mich. 2007) (de novo review of C(7) motions)
- Plunkett v. Dep’t of Transportation, 286 Mich App 168 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (notice need not follow a particular form; sufficiency judged on understandability)
- McLean v. Dearborn, 302 Mich App 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (failure to provide adequate statutory notice is fatal; considers notice read as a whole)
- Fairley v. Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290 (Mich. 2015) (distinguishes statutes requiring claimants to personally sign/verify filings)