Summary
In Jakupovic v City of Hamtramck, 489 Mich 939; 798 NW2d 12 (2011), our Supreme Court made it clear that a plaintiff is bound to the location of a defect identified in the plaintiff's pre-suit notice.
Summary of this case from Robertson v. City of PontiacOpinion
No. 142436.
June 1, 2011.
Court of Appeals No. 293715.
Summary Disposition.
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we remand this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for entry of an order granting summary disposition to the defendant. The Court of Appeals recognized that the plaintiff had stated the wrong address in giving notice to the defendant of an alleged defect in a sidewalk. The Court of Appeals erred by excusing this error, rather than enforcing the notice requirement found at MCL 691.1404(1) as written. Rowland v. Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 219 (2007). The statute requires notice of "the exact location" of the defect, and in this case, the plaintiff failed to specify the correct address where the defect was allegedly located.
MARILYN KELLY and HATHAWAY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.