819 N.W.2d 90
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff walked on a Pontiac sidewalk and fell on March 3, 2010, injuring his left leg; the fall occurred in the City of Pontiac.
- Plaintiff notified the City on April 15, 2010 that he tripped on a defective sidewalk at 35 Huron, Pontiac, Michigan, allegedly located on a specific street.
- Plaintiff filed a negligence action May 28, 2010, asserting failure to maintain sidewalks in reasonable repair.
- City moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the basis of governmental immunity, arguing notice was not sufficiently detailed under MCL 691.1404(1).
- Circuit court preliminarily found notice sufficiently detailed and denied the City’s motion; the court noted the presence of both 35 West and 35 East Huron Street, but concluded notice identified location.
- On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals reverses, holding the notice did not specify the exact location under MCL 691.1404(1) and that untimely photographs could not cure the notice; remands for judgment in favor of the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the notice complied with MCL 691.1404(1) by specifying the exact location of the defect | Plaintiff (K) argues notice was sufficient; photographs support location. | City contends notice was inherently ambiguous between 35 West and 35 East Huron; not specific. | No; notice did not specify exact location. |
| Whether late-submitted photographs could cure insufficient notice | Photographs should bolster the notice. | Photographs untimely; cannot cure defect. | Untimely photographs cannot cure the insufficient notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v City of Warren, 11 Mich App 449 (1968) (insufficient detail when defect location not specified)
- Dempsey v Detroit, 4 Mich App 150 (1966) (failure to specify corner of intersection invalidates notice)
- Jakupovic v City of Hamtramck, 489 Mich 939 (2011) (addresses ambiguity between multiple street numbers)
- Burise v City of Pontiac, 282 Mich App 646 (2009) (notice must be timely and sufficiently detailed)
- Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197 (2007) (untimely evidence cannot cure defective notice)