Shakila Powell v. City of Detroit, 334173

Plaintiff tripped and fell on a Detroit sidewalk on May 26, 2015, suffering injury; she testified a portion of the cement was missing creating a vertical drop of over two inches that had grass growing in it.
Plaintiff filed a notice of injury/hazard within 120 days under MCL 691.1404(1); the notice identified the address (14291 Marlowe St.), side of the street, described the defect, and included 13 photographs (8 circled to show the defect).
Defendant City moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10), arguing the notice was defective and the condition was not a sidewalk defect.
The trial court denied the City’s motion; the City appealed.
The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding the notice substantially complied with the statute (photographs cured any written-description gaps) and the missing portion of sidewalk constituted a qualifying vertical discontinuity defect (>2 inches) under MCL 691.1402a(3)(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the pre-suit notice complied with MCL 691.1404(1)	Notice timely and specific: gave address, side of street, described defect, and included photos showing exact location	Notice defective for not listing all persons who later came to scene and for not specifying exact location sufficiently	Notice was sufficient: address + photos substantially complied; witnesses requirement limited to those who witnessed the accident (Milot)
Whether the condition was a sidewalk defect qualifying municipal liability	The missing chunk is part of the sidewalk, creating a >2-inch vertical discontinuity that rebuts presumption of reasonable repair	The missing area is not part of the sidewalk (argued akin to berm) and thus not a qualifying defect	Condition is a qualifying defect: absence of cement creating >2-inch vertical discontinuity meets MCL 691.1402a(3)(a); defendant’s linguistic argument rejected

Plunkett v. Dep’t of Transp., 286 Mich. App. 168 (photographs and substantial compliance can render a notice adequate)
McLean v. Dearborn, 302 Mich. App. 68 (photographs may cure defect in written description of defect/location)
Milot v. Dep’t of Transp., 318 Mich. App. 272 (witnesses for notice statute are those who witnessed the occurrence at the time of the accident)
Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standard of review for motions for summary disposition)
Mitchell v. Detroit, 264 Mich. App. 37 (distinguishes berm from sidewalk for highway exception purposes)