CITY OF ANN ARBOR V UNIVERSITY OF MICH REGENTS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CITY OF ANN ARBOR,
UNPUBLISHED
July 1, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 197238
Washtenaw Circuit
LC No. 94-015527-CM
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Sawyer and Young, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff City of Ann Arbor appeals as of right from an order granting summary disposition to
defendant Regents of the University of Michigan regarding plaintiff’s complaint alleging entitlement to
indemnity and/or contribution from defendant regarding a premises liability lawsuit (a separate action)
filed by a third party against plaintiff. The trial court found the area where the third party fell, a
sidewalk, to be under plaintiff’s, and not defendant’s, control. Alternately, the trial court found that the
sidewalk was not integral to the Student Union building and, thus, not within the public building
exception to governmental immunity. We affirm.
Plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to defendant on the
court’s finding that the sidewalk was under plaintiff’s, and not defendant’s, control. We disagree.
On appeal we review a trial court’s grant of summary disposition de novo. Pinckney
Community Schools v Continental Casualty Co, 213 Mich App 521, 525; 540 NW2d 748 (1995).
It is clear on the facts before us that the third party fell because of an uneven sidewalk. The
third party did not allege, and plaintiff does not contend, that there is any defect in the stairs themselves
but only in a piece of the walkway at the bottom of the stairs.
By statute, the state has no duty to repair or to maintain sidewalks. MCL 691.1402(1); MSA
3.996(102)(1). Defendant, a public university, falls within the definition of the “state.” MCL
691.1401(c); MSA 3.996(101)(c). “The duty to maintain and repair sidewalks and
-1
crosswalks falls on local governments, including cities, villages, and townships.” Chaney v Dep’t of
Transportation, 447 Mich 145, 172; 523 NW2d 762 (1994). Thus, the trial court properly
determined that the responsibility for maintaining this sidewalk, and the liability, if any, for failing to
maintain it, fell on plaintiff, not defendant.
Plaintiff’s argument based upon its city charter, which purportedly delegates responsibility to
defendant to maintain the sidewalk, contrary to state law, is unpersuasive. Bivens v Grand Rapids,
443 Mich 391, 397; 505 NW2d 239 (1993).
Because we find that the trial court properly granted summary disposition to defendant on the
court’s finding that the sidewalk was under plaintiff’s, and not defendant’s, control, we need not reach
plaintiff’s second argument challenging the propriety of the trial court’s alternate basis for its ruling.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
