Sidewalk trip & fall; The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); Exceptions to governmental immunity; MCL 691.1402a(1); Responsibility to maintain the sidewalk in reasonable repair; MCL 691.1402a(5); Whether the sidewalk was adjacent to defendant-township’s highway; Distinguishing Stabley v Huron-Clinton Metro Park Auth & Haaksma v City of Grand Rapids

The court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court correctly denied defendant-Township’s (Pittsfield) summary disposition motion because the sidewalk where he “tripped and fell was adjacent to Pittsfield’s municipal highway” and thus, an exception to governmental immunity under the GTLA applied. “MCL 691.1402a(1) states ‘[a] municipal corporation in which a sidewalk is installed adjacent to a municipal, county, or state highway shall maintain the sidewalk in reasonable repair.’ The statute only specifies that where a sidewalk is installed ‘adjacent to’ a municipal, county, or state highway, the municipal corporation in which it is installed shall maintain that sidewalk in reasonable repair. The statute does not contain the word ‘parallel’ and does not imply, as Pittsfield suggests, a requirement that the sidewalk be parallel to a municipal, county, or state highway.” The court added that neither its “precedent, nor a dictionary definition, hold that in order to be adjacent, two objects must be parallel. Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed) defines ‘adjacent’ as ‘lying near or close to.’ It does not employ the word ‘parallel’ or use a synonym for the same.” While Pittsfield relied on Stabley and Haaksma, the court found the facts of those cases distinguishable from this case. “Stabley involved a portion of a park trail that was not close to a municipal, state, or county road, let alone adjacent to one.” As to Haaksma, the sidewalk here “runs beside a public roadway, not in between a parking lot and a building.” The court noted that “Pittsfield did not submit supporting documentary evidence and admits the relevant facts are undisputed. Pittsfield’s position under those undisputed facts is unsupported by the plain language of the statute, the dictionary definition of ‘adjacent,’ and the caselaw, and” the court declined to adopt it. It concluded that the “trial court did not err when it decided the undisputed facts establish Pittsfield is not entitled to governmental immunity.” Affirmed.