Glancy v. City of Roseville

• Decision Date: 26 April 1996
• Docket Number: Docket No. 175958
• Citation: 216 Mich.App. 390,549 N.W.2d 78
• Parties: Fred J. GLANCY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 78

549 N.W.2d 78

216 Mich.App. 390

Fred J. GLANCY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 175958.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 3, 1996, at Detroit.

Decided April 26, 1996, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication June 11, 1996.

Bieber & Czechowski, P.C. by Walter J. Czechowski, Center Line, for the plaintiff.

Thomas, DeGrood, Witenoff & Hoffman, P.C. by John J. Hoffman and Tracy L. Newhard, Detroit, for the defendant.

Before DOCTOROFF, C.J., and McDONALD and SULLIVAN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Fred J. Glancy appeals as of right an order of the Macomb Circuit Court granting summary disposition to defendant City of Roseville pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity granted by law) and (10) (no genuine issue of material fact). We reverse and remand.

On November 16, 1992, plaintiff filed a one-count complaint alleging that he sustained personal injury on June 26, 1992, when he tripped on a public sidewalk on Commonwealth Street in the City of Roseville, Michigan. The accident site consisted of two unbroken slabs of concrete, one of which was raised at one side approximately 1 1/2 inches higher than the adjoining slab. Defendant moved for summary disposition, claiming that it was liable for sidewalk defects only where the tripping obstacle is two inches or more. In granting summary disposition to defendant, the trial court found that the "two-inch rule" was codified into Michigan law by operation of the 1986 amendment of M.C.L. § 691.1407(1); M.S.A. § 3.996(107)(1).

We review the trial court's grant of summary disposition de novo to determine if defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Citizens Ins. Co. v. Bloomfield Twp., 209 Mich.App. 484, 486, 532 N.W.2d 183 (1995). When reviewing a grant of summary disposition based on a finding that the claim is barred by governmental immunity, all documentary evidence submitted by the parties is to be considered. All well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true and construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. MCR 2.116(C)(10) permits summary disposition when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

In this case of first impression, we determine whether the Legislature, in the 1986 amendments of the governmental immunity statute, M.C.L. § 691.1401 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.996(101) et seq., intended to reinstate the "two-inch rule" of sidewalk liability that the Supreme Court abolished in 1972. We hold that the Legislature did not so intend.

At common law, municipalities were not liable for damages for lack of repair to highways. Roy v. Dep't. of Transportation, 428 Mich. 330, 336, 408 N.W.2d 783 (1987). By 1887, the Legislature had provided for liability against municipalities in favor of any person sustaining bodily injuries by reason of neglect by a municipality to keep its sidewalks reasonably fit for travel. Id., at 337, 408 N.W.2d 783. Shortly thereafter, there began a long line of decisions in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that a municipality is not subject to liability for negligence because of a discontinuity of two inches or less in a sidewalk. Howard v. City of Melvindale, 27 Mich.App. 227, 230, 183 N.W.2d 341 (1970). That holding became known as the "two-inch rule," and it was uniformly applied until 1972. See, e.g., Harris v. Detroit, 367 Mich. 526, 117 N.W.2d 32 (1962); Berry v. Detroit, 341 Mich. 702, 69 N.W.2d 145 (1955); Northrup v. City of Pontiac, 159 Mich. 250, 123 N.W. 1107 (1909).

In 1972, the Supreme Court abolished the "two-inch rule," stating, "[W]e will no longer hold as a matter of law that a depression or obstructor [sic] of two inches or less in a sidewalk may not be the basis for a municipality's liability for negligence." Rule v. Bay City, 387 Mich. 281, 283, 195 N.W.2d 849 (1972) (emphasis in original).

When Rule was decided, the second sentence of M.C.L. § 691.1407(1); M.S.A. § 3.996(107)(1) provided:

Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed heretofore, which immunity is affirmed.

The 1986 amendment changed the wording of that sentence to the following:

Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed. [1986 P.A. 175, § 1 (emphasis added).]

Plaintiff claims and we agree that the trial court erred in determining that the 1986 amendment invalidated Rule and reimposed the "two-inch rule," which existed before July 1, 1965. We conclude that the 1986 amendment was not intended to affect municipal liability, and therefore Rule remains good law. This conclusion is supported by the way the statute defines "state." M.C.L. § 691.1401(c); M.S.A. § 3.996(101)(c) defines "state" as follows:

"State" means the state of Michigan and its agencies, departments, commissions, courts, boards, councils, statutorily created task forces, and shall include every public university and college of the state, whether established as a constitutional corporation or otherwise.

"Municipal corporation" is defined separately in the statute, M.C.L. § 691.1401(a); M.S.A. § 3.996(101)(a), as is "political subdivision," M.C.L. § 691.1401(b); M.S.A. § 3.996(101)(b). "State," "municipal corporation," and "political subdivision" are collectively defined as "governmental agenc[ies]." M.C.L. § 691.1401(d); M.S.A. § 3.996(101)(d). It appears clear that the Legislature intended distinctions to be made between the state and the municipalities.

This intent was confirmed in Walkowski v. Macomb Co. Sheriff, 64 Mich.App. 460, 236 N.W.2d 516 (1975). In Walkowski, this Court addressed the scope of governmental immunity as it applied to the operation of police departments and individual public officials. Interpreting the pre-1986 version of M.C.L. § 691.1407(1); M.S.A. § 3.996(107)(1), this Court stated, "We read the term 'state' to broadly differentiate between the state and its agencies and officers, and other governmental s...