Sharp v. City of Benton Harbor
292 Mich. App. 351
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Sharp was injured when a curb along Cross Street in Benton Harbor crumbled as she stepped onto it near May 7, 2007.
- The curb where Sharp fell was not at a corner or within a crosswalk, but adjacent to a grass verge separating curb from the sidewalk.
- Benton Harbor conceded jurisdiction over the curb at the site of Sharp’s fall.
- Sharp sued for negligent roadway and curb maintenance, asserting a statutory duty to maintain the curb caused her injuries.
- Benton Harbor moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing immunity because the curb did not fit the highway definition.
- The circuit court denied summary disposition; on appeal, the court affirmed, holding the curb is within the highway concept for immunity purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the curb fall within the highway definition under MCL 691.1401(e)? | Sharp (plaintiff) argues curb is within the broad highway concept. | Benton Harbor contends curb is not within the highway definition and immunity applies. | Curb falls within the highway definition; immunity does not bar the claim. |
| Does Meek control whether a curb is within the highway exception for a municipality? | Meek applies, making curb part of the highway and within immunity exception. | Grimes/Nawrocki limit Meek; Meek does not control municipal curb defects. | Meek does not control; however, the curb is within the highway concept for municipality here. |
| Is the curb an integral part of the road making the municipality liable under MCL 691.1402(1)? | Curb is an integral road component aiding travel and maintenance duty applies. | The city’s duties are limited and immunized unless within the improved portion of a highway. | Curb is an integral part of the road; municipality must maintain in reasonable repair. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meek v. Dep’t of Transp., 240 Mich. App. 105, 610 N.W.2d 250 (Mich. App. 2000) (highway maintenance duty limits for state/county road commissions; not binding on municipality here)
- Nawrocki v. Macomb Co. Rd. Comm., 463 Mich. 143, 615 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. 2000) (limits of highway exception; distinguishes state/county duties from municipal duties)
- Grimes v. Dep’t of Transp., 475 Mich. 72, 716 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. 2006) (overruled Meek in part; highway immunity analysis refined)
- Frame v. Nehls, 452 Mich. 171, 550 N.W.2d 739 (Mich. 1996) (interpretation of 'includes' in statutory definitions; contextual approach)
- Robinson v. Lansing, 486 Mich. 1, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010) (statutory construction; reading highway-related language in context)