Personal injury; Trip over a depression in a street surface; Immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); Whether the “highway exception” (MCL 691.1402) applied to the parking lane where plaintiff was allegedly injured

Agreeing that “the ‘highway exception’ to governmental immunity does not apply to the parking lane where plaintiff was allegedly injured[,]” the court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition. “Plaintiff tripped over a depression in the surface of Gratiot Avenue in Detroit, suffering leg injuries. Gratiot Avenue is a two-way street with three travel lanes on each side delineated by white paint markings, a center lane delineated by yellow paint markings, and parallel-parking lanes on either side of the street nearest to the curbs.” Defendant argued “it submitted unrebutted evidence that the parallel-parking lane was not a dual-use lane or otherwise designed for vehicular travel and thus was outside of the highway exception to governmental immunity.” The court concluded that defendant “provided evidence that established that it was entitled to governmental immunity. Therefore, the burden shifted to plaintiff to demonstrate that a question of fact remains in order to avoid summary disposition.” But she “submitted no evidence that showed the lane in question was being used for travel. Nor did she offer other evidence to rebut defendant’s claim of immunity. Plaintiff did not meet her burden of demonstrating that a question of fact remains.” Thus, defendant was “entitled to governmental immunity, and the Court of Claims erred by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7).”