|
No. 133772
| Estate of Chantell Buckner, by its Personal |
|
Kitty L. Groh |
| Representative, Richard Rashid, and LaQuata |
|
|
| Wright, Minor, by her Conservator, Michael J. |
|
|
| Panek, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Ingham - Nettles-Nickerson, B.) |
|
|
| City of Lansing, |
|
Christine D. Oldani |
| Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. |
|
David K. Otis |
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Michigan Association of Justice's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
After dark on the evening of January 29, 2005, two teenage girls and a seven-year-old girl were walking to a nearby McDonald’s in Lansing. The sidewalk was blocked by piles of snow and ice, placed there, at least in part by the city of Lansing’s recent snowplowing. Instead of crossing the street to use the other sidewalk, which was cleared, the three girls walked in the street. Two of them were struck by a man driving home after visiting his local Veterans of Foreign Wars post. Thirteen-year-old LaQuata Wright was badly injured; seven-year-old Chantell Buckner was killed. Buckner’s estate representative and Wright’s conservator sued the driver and his family, the VFW Post, and the city of Lansing. The city was sued under MCL 691.1402(1), the “highway exception” to governmental immunity. Pursuant to the highway exception, a “person who sustains bodily injury or damage to his or her property by reason of failure of a governmental agency to keep a highway under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel may recover the damages suffered by him or her from the governmental agency.” The plaintiffs’ first lawsuit cited the city’s failure to maintain, clear, shovel or remove the unnatural accumulation of snow and ice from the north sidewalk. According to the plaintiffs, this disrepair of the sidewalk “forced” the girls to walk in the street roadway. The plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, alleging a physical defect in the sidewalk surface and negligence on the city’s part in not properly closing that sidewalk. The city moved to dismiss both lawsuits on the basis of governmental immunity, arguing that the highway exception did not apply. The trial court denied the city’s motion. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, reversed and ordered summary disposition in the second lawsuit. But the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the first lawsuit could go forward. A governmental entity might still be held liable under the highway exception for an “unnatural accumulation” of ice and snow, the Court of Appeals reasoned. The city appeals.
Top of Page
|
