Background
This unpublished per curiam opinion concerns Douglas Williams’s premises-liability action against the City of Detroit. The opinion states that Williams was injured on July 23, 2023, after parking near Northwest Liquor at 20447 West Seven Mile Road. According to his allegations and deposition testimony, he stepped onto the curb with his left foot, a crack or gouge crumbled beneath him, and he fell. He alleged that Detroit failed to maintain the curb in reasonably safe condition and knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.
Amir Masood, an Engineering Services Coordinator for the Detroit Department of Public Works, testified about a June 18, 2019 sidewalk survey. The survey and an associated sketch identified broken sidewalk slabs, including at least three near the liquor store. Masood also reviewed August 2019 Google Street View images showing a crack in what he called the integral curb. He attributed likely damage to vehicles parking on the sidewalk and criticized its construction, but could not confirm that Williams’s post-fall photograph depicted a later stage of the same crack. Masood agreed that the survey gave Detroit notice of broken slabs, while maintaining that the sidewalk lay outside the city’s jurisdiction.
Detroit initially obtained summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10). In a February 13, 2025 opinion in Docket No. 369609, a Court of Appeals panel reversed the determination that the curb was not part of the sidewalk and remanded for consideration of Detroit’s arguments under MCL 691.1402a. On remand, Detroit argued that Williams had not rebutted the statutory presumption of reasonable repair or established the required notice. The trial court denied the renewed motion, finding factual questions concerning the sidewalk’s defective condition and notice. Detroit appealed as of right.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Reviewing summary disposition, governmental immunity, and statutory interpretation de novo, the panel addressed the presumption in MCL 691.1402a(3) that a municipality maintained a sidewalk in reasonable repair. Detroit argued that Williams had not shown a vertical discontinuity of at least two inches under subsection (3)(a). The court held that this did not defeat his claim because the presumption may be rebutted by evidence satisfying either subsection (3)(a) or (3)(b). Williams relied on subsection (3)(b), concerning a dangerous condition in the sidewalk itself of a particular character other than solely a vertical discontinuity.
Although whether the presumption has been rebutted is a question of law under MCL 691.1402a(4), the court concluded that Williams’s allegations and evidence were sufficient. It cited his testimony about loose pavement and a gap, the 2019 survey and sketch, the 2019 images, Masood’s testimony that repairs were not made, and the photograph taken about a week after the fall. Together, the court held, these materials adequately showed a dangerous condition other than solely a vertical discontinuity. The opinion’s procedural-history section quotes Williams as citing “MCL 691.102a(3)(b),” but the court’s analysis applies MCL 691.1402a(3)(b).
The court also rejected Detroit’s notice argument. MCL 691.1402a(2) requires proof that the municipality knew or should have known of the defect at least 30 days before the injury. Distinguishing Bernardoni v City of Saginaw, 499 Mich 470; 886 NW2d 109 (2016), the panel emphasized that Williams supplied more than post-accident photographs. It held that a jury could reasonably find actual or constructive notice more than 30 days before the fall from evidence that the sidewalk was broken in 2019, deteriorated, and was never repaired. The court therefore affirmed the denial of immunity-based summary disposition; it did not enter judgment on liability.
Key Takeaways
- On these facts, failure to prove a two-inch vertical discontinuity did not preclude rebutting the reasonable-repair presumption through MCL 691.1402a(3)(b).
- The court treated rebuttal of that presumption as a legal question, while concluding that the notice evidence could support a reasonable jury finding.
- The 2019 survey, images, deposition testimony, and post-fall photograph collectively distinguished this record from the photographs-only showing in Bernardoni.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Detroit sidewalk claims may proceed when a plaintiff invokes the “dangerous condition” route rather than relying exclusively on vertical-discontinuity measurements. It also shows the importance of combining municipal inspection records, historical images, and testimony when addressing the statutory 30-day notice requirement.
The affirmance is case-specific and interlocutory: it preserves Williams’s claim for further proceedings rather than establishing Detroit’s liability. Because the opinion is unpublished, it is not binding precedent under stare decisis, though it may be considered for persuasive or instructive value.