VANESSA MCLITTLE V CITY OF DETROIT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
VANESSA McLITTLE, Next Friend of MYRASIA
McLITTLE,
UNPUBLISHED
March 13, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 194735
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 95-509473 NI
CITY OF DETROIT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Gribbs, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals by right from the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to defendant
on the basis of governmental immunity. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff contends that defendant’s failure to remove abandoned vehicles parked on Chenlot
Street, which abuts the park where plaintiff ’s ward and other children play, gives rise to liability when,
as here, a child is injured by a passing motorist, ostensibly because the vision of both the motorist and
the pedestrian was obstructed by the “illegally” parked vehicles. We disagree. By statute, the city was
mandated to affix a notice to abandoned vehicles that had “remained on public or private property for a
period of time so that it appears to the police agency to be abandoned.” MCL 257.252a(2); MSA
9.1952(1)(2). If the vehicle was not removed within 48 hours after a notice was affixed, the vehicle
was deemed abandoned “and the police agency may have the vehicle taken into custody.” MCL
257.252a(3); MSA 9.1952(1)(3). The Legislature used the mandatory term “shall” in establishing the
duty of a police agency to affix a notice, but the permissive term “may” with respect to taking such
vehicles into custody. See Mollett v City of Taylor, 197 Mich App 328, 339; 494 NW2d 832
(1992). Accordingly, defendant had no duty to remove the abandoned vehicles at issue here; therefore
defendant cannot be liable in tort for plaintiff ’s injuries. White v Beasley, 453 Mich 308, 323-324;
552 NW2d 1 (1996).
Affirmed.
-1
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
-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.