Stevie Hill v. City of Flint
330003
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff tripped when his foot caught in a deep hole adjacent to a City sidewalk at the corner of Wallenberg, fell, and sustained injuries; EMS responded and he was treated at Hurley Hospital.
- Plaintiff served a statutory notice under MCL 691.1404(1) within 120 days, describing the defect and location, listing EMS personnel and hospital treaters as known witnesses, and stating he “suffered injuries to his right knee, right leg, right ankle, and left shoulder.” A photograph of the hole was attached.
- Plaintiff sued the City of Flint under the highway exception to governmental immunity (MCL 691.1402) for the defective highway claim.
- The City moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing the notice failed to specify the “injury sustained” as required by MCL 691.1404(1).
- The trial court denied the City’s motion, finding the notice substantially complied with the statute; the City appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the notice—viewed as a whole—substantially complied with the requirement to specify the injury sustained and was adequate given the defect, location, and witness identification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory notice adequately specified the “injury sustained” under MCL 691.1404(1) | Hill argued the notice (specific injured body parts, EMS response, hospital treaters, and photo of defect) substantially complied and gave the city fair notice | City argued the notice was insufficiently specific about the injuries and thus failed the statutory requirement, barring recovery | Court held the notice substantially complied when read as a whole and denied summary disposition |
| Whether the notice otherwise satisfied the statute’s requirements (location, nature of defect, witnesses) | Hill relied on the clear location, photo, defect description, and identified witnesses | City did not contest location/defect/witness sufficiency | Court found location, defect description, and witness identification sufficient |
| Proper standard of review for C(7) motion involving governmental immunity | Hill relied on de novo review and that documentary evidence must be construed for nonmoving party | City urged that the documentary evidence defeats plaintiff’s complaint | Court applied de novo review and viewed documentary evidence in plaintiff’s favor |
| Whether liberal construction of notice doctrine applies to avoid technical defeat of lay notices | Hill argued statute should be construed liberally and substantial compliance suffices | City urged strict enforcement of the injury-description requirement | Court applied liberal construction and substantial-compliance doctrine, favoring notice effectiveness over technical defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights, 296 Mich. App. 387 (discusses standards for MCR 2.116(C)(7) and governmental immunity review)
- McLean v. Dearborn, 302 Mich. App. 68 (explains that failure to provide adequate notice under MCL 691.1404(1) is fatal and rejects bare statements of “significant injuries”)
- Plunkett v. Dep’t of Transp., 286 Mich. App. 168 (favors liberal construction of statutory notice requirements and permits assessing the whole notice to determine adequacy)