Trip & fall on a sidewalk; Governmental immunity; MCL 691.1407(1); The highway exception; MCL 691.1402; Bernardoni v City of Saginaw; MCL 691.1402a(1)-(3); Open & obvious danger; MCL 691.1402a(5); Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc; Breach & comparative fault; Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc; “Sidewalk”; MCL 691.1401(f); Whether the hazard was part of the sidewalk; Comparing LaMeau v Royal Oak, Weaver v City of Detroit, & Ali v City of Detroit

Holding that the trial court erred by finding defendant-city was not entitled to summary disposition, the court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition in defendant’s favor. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries sustained when he tripped and fell over the remains of a signpost on the sidewalk that was partially removed. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding there was a question of fact whether the hazard was open and obvious or had special aspects. On appeal, the court first disagreed with defendant that it was entitled to summary disposition on the issue of whether the hazard was open and obvious, noting “factual questions remain, notwithstanding that the [trial] court applied the now-overruled framework set forth by Lugo and its progeny . . . .” However, the court agreed with defendant that the highway exception did not apply because the metal stub was not part of the sidewalk and, as such, it was entitled to summary disposition on that basis. “In light of the statutory definition of sidewalk and [LaMeau, Weaver, and Ali], we are constrained to rule that a sign post is not part of the sidewalk. Regardless of how irresponsible [defendant] may be for allowing a metal stub that is over five inches high to exist in the middle of its sidewalk (and near a bus stop), the Legislature has determined that no liability exists under the present circumstances.”