Motorcycle accident claim alleging a road defect; Whether the 60-day notice provision of MCL 224.21(3) or the 120-day notice provision of MCL 691.1404(1) applied; Streng v. Mackinac Cnty. Rd. Comm’r; Brown v. Manistee Cnty. Rd. Comm’n; Rowland v. Washtenaw Cnty. Rd. Comm’n; Stare decisis; 7.215(J)(1); Catalina Mktg. Sales Corp. v. Department of Treasury; Paige v. Sterling Heights; Woodring v. Phoenix Ins. Co.; Associated Builders & Contractors v. Lansing; Call for a conflict panel; MCR 7.215(J)(2); Pearce v. Eaton Cnty. Rd. Comm’n; Brugger v. Midland Cnty. Bd. of Rd. Comm’rs

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition of plaintiff’s claim in favor of defendant-county road commission. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries he sustained when he hit a defect in the roadway and lost control of his motorcycle. The trial court found that plaintiff failed to meet the 60-day notice provision in MCL 224.21(3). On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the 120-day notice provision in MCL 691.1404(1) should apply. He claimed that because Streng wrongly departed from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown, the court could not follow Streng and was required to apply Brown. “Here, as recognized by Streng, Rowland overruled Brown, and in doing so, ‘the Rowland Court repudiated the entirety’ of Brown ‘because the analysis [it] employ[s] is deeply flawed.’” Therefore, because Brown was clearly overruled, the court was “not bound to follow it . . . and must instead follow Streng[.]" The court declined plaintiff’s invitation to call for a conflict panel, noting “the issue is already slated to be resolved by” the Supreme Court. Affirmed.