Don't risk dismissal .. Notice must be very specific in sidewalk falls

The court held in this case for damages arising from a defective sidewalk, that the description in the notice provided to the defendant-Village was insufficient to place it on notice of the "exact . . . nature of the defect." Since the plaintiffs did not give the defendant the required notice, it was entitled to governmental immunity. Thus, the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7). The plaintiff-Lyn Bykonen was walking with her son along a sidewalk when a school bus backed toward them. While trying to protect her son from the bus, she stepped into a crescent-shaped depression in the sidewalk and sprained her ankle. Two weeks later, someone submitted a letter addressed to the "Akron Village Clerk" on the plaintiff's behalf at a council meeting, describing the incident. Plaintiffs later filed suit for damages arising from the defective sidewalk. The trial court denied the Village's motion for summary disposition, holding that there was a question of fact as to whether the notice complied with the notice required under MCL 691.1404. Under the highway exception, a village may be liable for injuries arising from its failure to properly maintain its sidewalks. However, there must be strict compliance with the conditions and restrictions of the statute. One such condition is the notice of injury provision in MCL 691.1404. "As a condition to any recovery for injuries sustained by reason for any defective highway, the injured person . . . shall serve a notice on the governmental agency of the occurrence of the injury and the defect." Further, the notice must "specify the exact location of the defect, the injury sustained, and the names of the witnesses known at the time by the claimant." The court noted that plaintiff arguably described the location and nature of the defect with some specificity, but she did not describe the nature of the defect at all. She merely characterized the sidewalk as "a hazard." Further, there was nothing else within her description of the location of the accident that would clarify the nature of the defect. The description was insufficient to place the Village on notice of the "exact . . . nature of the defect." Thus, the court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting the defendant's motion for summary disposition.