Action seeking damages for a fall on a city sidewalk; Governmental immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) (MCL 691.1401 et seq.); Genesee Cnty. Drain Comm’r v. Genesee Cnty.; “Governmental agency” defined; MCL 691.1401(a); “Political subdivision” defined; MCL 691.1401(d) & (e); The highway exception to governmental immunity; MCL 691.1402; “Highway” defined; MCL 691.1401(c); Notice requirement; MCL 691.1404(1); Thurman v. City of Pontiac; Rowland v. Washtenaw Cnty. Rd. Comm’n; McCahan v. Brennan; McLean v. City of Dearborn; Jakupovic v. City of Hamtramck; Principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse for failure to comply with it; Spohn v. Van Dyke Pub. Schs.

[Unpublished opinion.] The court held that the trial court did not err by ruling that the plaintiff failed to abrogate the defendant-city’s governmental immunity, or by granting summary disposition for defendant. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she sustained when she allegedly tripped and fell on a city sidewalk. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant, finding it was immune from suit under the GTLA because plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements of MCL 691.1404. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred when it granted defendant summary disposition because she: “(1) substantively complied with MCL 691.1404; and (2) deserves lenient treatment as a layman not versed in the ‘technical’ requirements of the law.” It noted that she failed to provide defendant “with the ‘exact location’ of the sidewalk” where the injury allegedly occurred, instead giving a “vague description” of the general area. Further, “she provided no photographs or diagrams to help [defendant] locate the defective sidewalk, which might have compensated for her inability to produce a precise address. And her lawyers’ letter to the city provided no indication whatsoever of the defective sidewalk’s location. For this reason alone—the fact that plaintiff failed to tell the city the precise location of the defective sidewalk—her claim must fail.” It also held that although she claimed she should “receive special treatment and exemption from MCL 691.1404’s clear mandates, ignorance of the law is no excuse for failure to comply with it.” Moreover, “while plaintiff may be a layman on the matter of statutory interpretation, her lawyers certainly are not. Despite the fact that plaintiff’s claim of damages obviously did not satisfy the notice requirements of MCL 691.1404, the letter from plaintiff’s attorneys made no effort to amend this mistake.” Affirmed.