CATHERINE CURRY V CITY OF DETROIT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CATHERINE CURRY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 24, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 283523
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 06-624755-NO
CITY OF DETROIT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Fort Hood and Davis, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to
defendant. We affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Plaintiff was injured when she fell on stairs in the Herman Keifer Hospital Building in
Detroit. The only issue presented in this appeal is whether plaintiff gave proper notice to
defendant as required by statute. At the time of the accident, an Incident Investigation Report
was filled out with her employer, Health Services Technical Assistance, which contracts with
defendant. The form is undated and gives no identification of the location of the accident other
than “North Stairwell–Bldg #one.” In an affidavit submitted after defendant raised the issue of
notice, plaintiff stated that she personally hand-delivered a copy of the report to the City of
Detroit City Clerk approximately one week after her fall. The record also includes a “Security
Incident Report” completed by a member of the City’s Department of Health and Wellness
Promotion six days after the accident.
Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) (governmental
immunity), (C)(8) (failure to state a claim), and (C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact). The
trial court agreed with defendant that plaintiff had failed to follow the proper procedures for
giving notice to a city defendant and granted the motion.
We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for summary
disposition. Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998).
Under the “public building” exception to governmental immunity, a governmental
agency may be liable for injuries occurring in a public building over which it has ownership or
-1-
control. MCL 691.1406. The public building exception contains a knowledge requirement.
Concomitant to that requirement is a notice requirement. MCL 691.1406 provides in part
(emphasis added):
Knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition of the public
building and time to repair the same shall be conclusively presumed when such
defect existed so as to be readily apparent to an ordinary observant person for a
period of 90 days or longer before the injury took place. As a condition to any
recovery for injuries sustained by reason of any dangerous or defective public
building, the injured person, within 120 days from the time the injury occurred,
shall serve a notice on the responsible governmental agency of the occurrence of
the injury and the defect. The notice shall specify the exact location and nature of
the defect, the injury sustained and the names of the witnesses known at the time
by the claimant. The notice may be served upon any individual, either personally,
or by certified mail, return receipt requested, who may lawfully be served with
civil process directed against the responsible governmental agency, anything to
the contrary in the charter of any municipal corporation notwithstanding.
MCR 2.105(G)(2) governs service of process on cities. It provides that service of process
is made by serving the summons and complaint on “the mayor, the city clerk, or the city attorney
of a city.” Compliance with the notice requirement is mandatory. See Chambers v Wayne Co
Airport Auth, 482 Mich___; 758 NW2d 302 (2008), adopting the reasoning of the dissenting
judge in Chambers v Wayne Co Airport Auth, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of
Appeals, issued June 5, 2008 (Docket No. 277900) (Murray, J., dissenting), slip op at 2.
Whether the defendant was actually prejudiced by any failure to comply with the statutory notice
requirement is immaterial to whether the claim is barred. Id. Nor is it enough for the plaintiff to
argue that the notice provision’s purpose was satisfied, because satisfying the general purpose of
a statute does not allow a party to escape the requirements found in the words of the statute. Id.
at 2 n 1.
The trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Even
accepting as true plaintiff’s affidavit that she gave a copy of the incident report to the city clerk,
plaintiff did not meet the statutory requirements for service because the incident report does not
specify “the exact location . . . of the defect” as required by statute.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
