Wigfall v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 16 July 2019
• Docket Number: 157097.,Docket Nos. 156793
• Citation: 504 Mich. 330,934 N.W.2d 760
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Dwayne WIGFALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellee. Faytreon Onee West, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Detroit, Defendant-Appellee.

504 Mich. 330

934 N.W.2d 760

Dwayne WIGFALL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellee.

Faytreon Onee West, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.City of Detroit, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket Nos. 156793

157097.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued on application for leave to appeal April 11, 2019

Decided July 16, 2019

Viviano, J.

The issue in these cases is whether plaintiffs, Dwayne Wigfall and Faytreon West, properly served their notices of injuries sustained and of highway defects.MCL 691.1404(2) provides that this notice "may be served upon any individual ... who may lawfully be served with civil process directed against the governmental agency, anything to the contrary in the charter of any municipal corporation notwithstanding."MCR 2.105(G)(2) states that service may be made upon a city by leaving the summons and a copy of the complaint with "the mayor, the city clerk, or the city attorney ...."Here, West and Wigfall served their notices on the Law Department of the city of Detroit(the City).We hold that plaintiffs complied with the requirements of MCL 691.1404(2) by serving their notices on the Law Department, which is an agent of the Corporation Counsel.¹Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals in both cases and remand to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I.FACTS

A. WIGFALLv. DETROIT

Wigfall alleges that he was driving his motorcycle on Algonac Street in Detroit when he hit a pothole.As a result, Wigfall fell off his motorcycle and sustained multiple injuries.Through counsel, Wigfall contacted the City’s Law Department and was informed that his notice of injury and highway defect should be addressed to "City of Detroit Law Department -- Attention Claims."Consequently, Wigfall sent notice via certified mail to "City of Detroit Law Department – CLAIMS."The notice stated, "Pursuant to MCL 600.6431, this letter is intended to provide you with statutory notice that our client, Dwayne Wigfall, suffered personal injuries as a result of a defect under the City of Detroit’s care and control on June 9, 2014 at approximately 9:00 p.m."The notice also included a description of the pothole, its location, and a description of plaintiff’s injuries.The Law Department received the notice on September 22, 2014.

An adjuster from the Law Department contacted Wigfall’s attorney via a letter dated December 3, 2014.The letter stated, "The filing of your client’s claim regarding the above-referenced incident is hereby acknowledged."The adjuster also requested additional documents to proceed with processing the claim.

Wigfall later filed the instant complaint against the City.The City sought summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), asserting that Wigfall’s claim was barred by governmental immunity because the statutory notice was not served upon an individual who may lawfully be served with civil process, as MCL 691.1404(2) requires.The trial court denied the City’s motion for summary disposition.The City appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Wigfall failed to comply with MCL 691.1404(2).²Wigfall applied for leave to appeal in this Court.We scheduled oral argument and requested briefing on the following issue, among others: "[W]hether an individual described in MCR 2.105(G)(2) can delegate the legal authority to accept lawful process under MCL 691.1404(2), see1 Mich. Civ. Jur.Agency§ 1(2018)."³

B.WEST v. DETROIT

West alleges that she was walking on Mansfield Street in Detroit when she tripped on a pothole and fell, suffering injuries as a result.West’s counsel sent notice of the injury and highway defect to the City’s Law Department via certified mail.It instructed the City, "If you believe that this notice does not comply in any way with any applicable notice requirements, immediately contact the undersigned and any additional information required by statu[t]e, ordinance, rule, or regulation will be promptly furnished."The Law Department received the letter on August 8, 2014.As with Wigfall, a municipal adjuster responded with a letter stating, "The filing of your client’s claim regarding the above-referenced incident is hereby acknowledged" and requesting additional documentation.

West later filed the instant complaint, and the City filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing—as it did in Wigfall —that West had failed to comply with the notice requirement in MCL 691.1404(2) by failing to serve an individual who may lawfully be served with civil process.The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant.

West moved for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court erred because the notice statute, MCL 691.1404(2), states that "the notice may be served upon any individual" and the word "may" is permissive and not mandatory.The trial court denied the motion.West appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion, citing its earlier decision in Wigfall v. Detroit .⁴West then filed an application for leave to appeal in this Court.This Court scheduled oral argument and requested briefing on the following issue, among others: "[W]hether an individual described in MCR 2.105(G)(2) can delegate the legal authority to accept lawful process under MCL 691.1404(2), see1 Mich. Civ. Jur.Agency§ 1(2018)."⁵

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

"This Court reviews the grant or denial of summary disposition de novo to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."⁶" ‘When a motion is filed under [ MCR 2.116(C)(7) ], the court must consider not only the pleadings, but also any affidavits, depositions, admissions or documentary evidence that is filed or submitted by the parties.’ "⁷"The contents of the complaint are accepted as true unless contradicted by documentation submitted by the movant."⁸A question of statutory interpretation is a question of law that we also review de novo.⁹

III.ANALYSIS

Under the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1401 et seq. , unless one of five exceptions applies, governmental agencies are immune from tort liability when they are engaged in a governmental function.¹⁰One such exception is the highway exception, MCL 691.1402(1), which provides that "[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."

A claimant seeking recovery under the highway exception must comply with the notice requirements of MCL 691.1404, which provides, in relevant part:

(1) As a condition to any recovery for injuries sustained by reason of any defective highway, the injured person, within 120 days from the time the injury occurred, except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) shall serve a notice on the governmental agency of the occurrence of the injury and the defect.The notice shall specify the exact location and nature of the defect, the injury sustained and the names of the witnesses known at the time by the claimant.

(2) The notice may be served upon any individual, either personally, or by certified mail, return receipt requested, who may lawfully be served with civil process directed against the governmental agency, anything to the contrary in the charter of any municipal corporation notwithstanding.

Finally, to determine the "individual[s] ... who may lawfully be served with civil process directed against the governmental agency,"we look to MCR 2.105(G)(2).That court rule provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Service of process on a public, municipal, quasi-municipal, or governmental corporation, unincorporated board, or public body may be made by serving a summons and a copy of the complaint on:

* * *

(2) the mayor, the city clerk, or the city attorney of a city[.]^[11]

Plaintiffs complied with the statute’s notice requirement because they sent their notices to the agent of the Corporation Counsel.As noted above, MCL 691.1404(2) provides that "[t]he notice may be served upon any individual who may lawfully be served with civil process against the governmental agency."While MCR 2.105(G)(2) says that cities may be served with process by leaving a summons and a copy of the complaint with the "the mayor, the city clerk, or the city attorney,""whatever a person may lawfully do if acting in his own right and on his own behalf he may lawfully delegate to an agent."¹²For the reasons below, we conclude that the City authorized its Law Department to receive notices of injuries sustained and of highway defects.¹³

"Under the common law of agency, in determining whether an agency has been created, we consider the relations of the parties as they in fact exist under their agreements or acts and note that in its broadest sense agency includes every relation in which one person acts for or represents another by his authority."¹⁴"Fundamental to the existence of an agency relationship is the right of the principal to control the conduct of the agent."¹⁵

An agent’s actual authority may be express or implied.¹⁶Implied authority consists of the power " ‘to do all things which are reasonably necessary or proper to efficiently carry into effect the power conferred, unless it be a thing specifically forbidden.’ "¹⁷"[I]mplied authority must rest upon acts and conduct of the alleged agent known to and acquiesced in by the alleged principal prior to the incident at bar."¹⁸"Whether the act in question is within the authority granted depends upon the act’s usual or necessary connection to accomplishing the purpose of the agency."¹⁹

Implied authority is not without limits: " ‘The apparent or implied authority of an agent cannot be so extended as to permit him to depart from the usual manner of accomplishing what he is employed to effect.Nor can he enlarge his powers by unauthorized representations and...