Governmental immunity; 120-day postinjury notice of a highway defect; MCL 691.1404(1); “Exact location”

The court found that because “plaintiff’s notice did not satisfy MCL 691.1404(1), the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity.” Thus, it reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting defendant summary disposition. The question was “whether the two written notices sent by plaintiff’s counsel to defendant in about August or September 2022 explaining that her injury occurred ‘at Alfred Street near Shed 5 of the Eastern Market’ while she ‘was walking across Alfred Street near Shed 5, when suddenly and without warning she was caused to fall due to uneven cement/roadway,’ satisfied MCL 691.1404(1).” In light of the applicable authorities, the court concluded “that the notice was insufficient to satisfy the statute’s requirement that ‘[t]he notice shall specify the exact location and nature of the defect . . . .’” It found that the notice “did not specify ‘the exact location’ of her alleged injury for the purposes of MCL 691.1404(1), and it was legally insufficient as a result.” It was “unclear from the notice whether the alleged defect was a pothole, an inclined part of the highway, a bump or gap, a divot, or any other non-parallel aspect of the highway that might fairly be considered ‘uneven.’”