Injury in a City

The case below shows that if your lawyer is not thorough in their notice to a City of injury then the case may be dismissed forever.

Because the plaintiff's notice did not specify the exact location of the alleged defect within the meaning of MCL 691.1404(1), the court held that the notice was insufficient, plaintiff was not entitled to proceed against the defendant-City under the highway exception, and the City was entitled to governmental immunity as a matter of law.Thus, the trial court erred by denying the defendant-City's motion for summary disposition. Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor the City. Plaintiff was walking in the City when he fell on a public sidewalk, sustaining injuries to his left leg. He alleged that he had tripped on a portion of the sidewalk that was cracked or uneven. He notified the City in writing that he had tripped on an allegedly defective sidewalk while "walking east on Huron Street" and that his injury had occurred at "35 Huron, Pontiac, Michigan." Plaintiff claimed that the City had failed to maintain the sidewalk in reasonable repair and that the sidewalk was unsafe for public travel. The City argued that plaintiff failed to comply with MCL 691.1404(1) because his notice was not sufficiently detailed. In particular, the City argued that the words "35 Huron, Pontiac, Michigan" did not sufficiently identify the exact location of plaintiff's alleged injury. The City contended that because there was both a 35 West Huron Street and a 35 East Huron Street, the language of the notice was ambiguous. The court held that plaintiff's notice did not specify whether the alleged defect was located at 35 West Huron Street or 35 East Huron Street, both of which were actual addresses in the City. Nor did his notice specify whether the alleged defect was located on the north side or south side of Huron Street. Nor was the photographic evidence provided by plaintiff in response to the City's motion for summary disposition sufficient to cure the insufficient notice. "The photographs were submitted more than 120 days after plaintiff's injury," thus it was improper for the trial court to consider them as part of plaintiff's notice. This was true even if the untimely submission of the photographs did not prejudice the City in any way.