Court Opinion

ID: 9739666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:19:13.733194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:13.397956
License: Public Domain

D. E. Shelton, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10) may he granted only where there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact. The test is whether the record that might be developed, giving the benefit of any doubt to the opposing party, would leave open an issue upon which reasonable minds could differ. Courts must be liberal in finding that a genuine issue of material fact exists and cannot grant the motion unless satisfied that it would be impossible for the claim to be supported at trial because of a deficiency that cannot be overcome. Adas v Ames Color-File, 160 Mich App 297; 407 NW2d 640 (1987). When reviewing such a motion, a court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and any other documentary evidence available and cannot grant the motion unless it concludes that it is impossible for the claim to be supported by evidence at trial. Nichols v Clare Community Hosp, 190 Mich App 679; 476 NW2d 493 (1991); Peterfish v Frantz, 168 Mich App 43; 424 NW2d 25 (1988).
The available evidence in this case clearly posed an issue of material fact regarding defendant’s constructive notice of the danger posed by the manhole. The facts, when taken most favorably to plaintiffs, show that defendant knew of the dangers posed to pedestrians by abandoned manholes because there was no routine maintenance performed on such manholes. Defendant was especially aware of the risk that a pedestrian might *60fall through a manhole as a result of precisely the "tipping” action alleged to have caused severe injury here. Defendant also knew that this particular manhole had been abandoned for over thirty years and that it had not been filled and welded shut as is the normal procedure. I believe that this evidence is sufficient to pose a question of fact for the jury.
Plaintiffs did not allege that defendant had actual notice of the fact that this manhole had accumulated enough debris to tip and cause injury. Nor are plaintiffs required to do so. MCL 691.1403; MSA 3.996(103) provides for liability where the municipality "should have known of the existence of the defect and had a reasonable time to repair the defect before the injury took place.” Plaintiffs alleged, and the evidence at trial may well establish, such constructive notice. There is no requirement of knowledge of the exact defect that causes the injury.
Peters v Hwy Dep’t, 400 Mich 50; 252 NW2d 799 (1977), relied upon by the majority, is in fact the leading authority for the proposition that the government has sufficient constructive knowledge of a defect if there was knowledge of the type of danger posed by the condition that was actually known to exist at the site where the injury occurred. Whether thirty years is a reasonable time to repair the manhole is, at the very least, an issue for the jury. In fact, case law is clear that issues of constructive notice of highway and sidewalk defects are questions of fact. Peters, supra; Cruz v Saginaw, 370 Mich 476; 122 NW2d 670 (1963); Hendershott v Grand Rapids, 142 Mich 140; 105 NW 140 (1905); Beamon v Highland Park, 85 Mich App 242; 271 NW2d 187 (1978).
I believe that the trial court improperly as*61sumed the role of factfinder with respect to this motion for summary disposition and that the majority does likewise in its review of the record. The majority’s statement that "the record is devoid of evidence that defendant. . . should have known of the alleged defect in the abandoned manhole” ignores the evidence that defendant was aware of the risks posed by abandoned manholes and that this manhole was abandoned and thus posed just such a risk.
I would reverse the order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition and remand for a trial.