Fall from a bicycle on a city sidewalk; Governmental immunity; The highway exception; Notice specifying the exact location of the alleged defect; MCL 691.1404(1); Wigfall v City of Detroit; Plunkett v Department of Transp; Madbak v Farmington Hills; Whether a defective notice was cured; Information supplied after the statutory period; Thurman v Pontiac; Remand as to costs & attorney fees

Holding that plaintiff’s failure to timely provide notice of the correct location of the alleged sidewalk defect as required by MCL 691.1404(1) was fatal to his claims, the court reversed the denial of defendant-city’s summary disposition motion. The case arose from injuries plaintiff sustained falling from his bicycle on a city sidewalk. He alleged that he struck a hole or uneven portion of sidewalk. In his notice of claim, he identified the wrong location of the alleged defect. He asserted his “notice substantially complied with the statute because it was timely, included photographs of the correct defect, and allowed defendant to investigate the claim.” The trial court denied the city summary disposition and granted him leave to amend his complaint. On appeal, the court noted that “substantial compliance may be sufficient, and some ambiguity in one part of the notice may be clarified by other information contained in [it]. A timely supplemental notice may also cure an otherwise inadequate initial notice.” But the misidentification of the intersection where the alleged defect was located “was not a minor error in wording or a vague description of the correct area. The notice identified an entirely incorrect location. Because the statute required plaintiff to specify the exact location of the defect within 120 days of the injury, the notice did not comply with MCL 691.1404(1).” And his contention that “the defective notice was cured because he later supplied the correct location in an amended complaint” failed because “information supplied after the statutory period expires cannot cure a defective notice” and the amended complaint “was filed after the 120-day notice period expired.” Further, the photos he included with the notice did not resolve the incorrect location information because they did not specify the exact location. “They did not show street signs, addresses, intersections, or other identifying landmarks that would have allowed defendant to determine” the correct location. The court added that whether “defendant ultimately suffered prejudice from the defective notice does not excuse plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the statutory requirements.” It remanded for consideration of defendant’s request for costs and attorney fees, which the trial court had not addressed.