Governmental immunity; Highway exception; Presuit notice; MCL 691.1404(1); “Names of the witnesses known at the time by the claimant”; Witness whose name is unknown; Statutory interpretation

Addressing the issue for the first time, the court held that MCL 691.1404(1) requires a claimant’s presuit notice to identify a witness by name only when the claimant knows the witness’s name. Thus, plaintiff’s failure to identify an unnamed witness did not render her notice insufficient. Plaintiff alleged that she was injured after stepping into a large depression in a Detroit sidewalk. Her timely notice identified several witnesses, but at her deposition she also testified that an unidentified homeless man saw her fall. Defendant-City sought summary disposition based on governmental immunity, asserting that plaintiff’s failure to disclose him violated the requirement that the presuit notice specify “the names of the witnesses known at the time by the claimant.” On appeal, the court concluded that plaintiff had “the better argument.” Reading the statutory language in context, it determined that “under MCL 691.1404(1), the notice must specify the name of a witness only when the witness’s name is known at the time by the claimant.” The alternative interpretation would completely bar recovery whenever a claimant knew someone witnessed an accident but did not know that person’s name, a result inconsistent with the notice requirement’s purposes of permitting a prompt investigation and correction of the defect. The court also rejected the City’s contention that an unnamed witness must at least be described or otherwise identified. Although that approach might have “substantial appeal from a policy perspective,” it found “no support in the language of MCL 691.1404(1).” The statute requires “names,” and courts cannot add a requirement that the Legislature did not include. The court clarified that “names” does not mean legal names, so a known first name, last name, stage name, or nickname must be disclosed. But “[i]f a claimant does not know the name of a witness, there is no requirement under the statute that the notice disclose, include, list, identify, or refer to the witness in some other way.” Because there was no evidence plaintiff knew the homeless man’s name, her notice was sufficient. Affirmed.