Governmental immunity; Highway exception; MCL 691.1402(1); Sidewalk defect; Notice of injury; MCL 691.1404(1); Known witnesses; Milot v Department of Transp; Exact location & nature of defect; Substantial compliance; Madbak v City of Farmington Hills; Photographs; McLean v City of Dearborn; Date discrepancy

The court held that plaintiff-Gonzales’s notice substantially complied with MCL 691.1404(1) because he was not required to identify people who arrived after the fall, adequately described the sidewalk defect through location information and photographs, and the one-day date error did not invalidate the notice. Gonzales sued defendant-city after he tripped and fell on a sidewalk, fracturing his kneecap and hip. The city moved for summary disposition on governmental-immunity grounds, arguing that the notice was deficient as to the nature of the defect and known witnesses. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court first held that the notice did not fail for omitting the names of four people who helped Gonzales afterward because MCL 691.1404(1) requires the names only of persons who “witnessed the occurrence,” and none of the later-identified people “saw plaintiff fall or become injured.” The court next held that the description “defective sidewalk,” combined with exact coordinates, an address, and circled Google images, provided adequate notice of the nature and location of the defect because any written deficiency was remedied. It also held that listing March 2 rather than March 1 did not defeat notice because the statute does not require the date of injury in the notice, the notice was served about three weeks after the fall, and it was “‘understandable and sufficient to bring the important facts’” to the city’s attention. Affirmed.