COA Opinion Published: November 10, 2026
COA Docket No. 376789
Wayne County Circuit Court
Holding: Under MCL 691.1404(1), a claimant must specify the names of witnesses known to the claimant at the time the notice is given. The statute does not require a claimant to identify, describe or refer to a witness whose name the Plaintiff does not know.
Facts: Plaintiff was taking a stroll alongside Woodware Avenue in Downtown Detroit. She was approaching the Fillmore for a country music concert. Around 6:00 PM on a Saturday and accompanied by her boyfriend, Plaintiff spotted a rapper she knew and headed towards him to say hello. As she did, she stepped into a large depression in the sidewalk, which caused her to fall and suffer serious injury.
After the fall, Plaintiff then gave presuit notice under MCL 691.1404 to the City of Detroit and identified several known and partially identified witnesses. At her disposition, however, Plaintiff testified that an unidentified homeless man also witnesses the fall. Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that Plaintiff failed to strictly comply with the notice statute because she had not identified that witness. The Trial Court denied the motion as it found substantial compliance with the statute.
Key Appellate Holdings:
MCL 691.1404(1) requires a claimant to disclose the name of witnesses known to the claimant, not every person known to have witnessed the accident.
The Court of Appeals focused on the statutory language required the notice to specify “the names of the witnesses known at the time by the claimant.” The statute then requires disclosure of a witness when the claimant knows the witness’s name. It does not go so far to impose a knowledge requirement and require a claimant disclose the existence of every unidentified person who might have seen the accident.
A claimant is not required to describe or otherwise identify a witness whose name is unknown.
Defendant argued that the Plaintiff should have at least referred to the unidentified witness by description. The Court rejected this interpretation because the legislature through the statutory language required the disclosure of names and no description. Reading such a requirement into the statute would violate the manifest intent of the legislature.
The statutory reference to a witness’s “name” is not limited to complete legal name
Under MCL 691.1404(1) there is not requirement for “legal names,” just “names.” If a claimant knows a witness by a first name, last name, nickname, stage name, or any other name, then the claimant must disclose that name. Where the claimant does not know any name, under the statute it is not required.
Compliance with the notice statute was sufficient, making the substantial-compliance issue unnecessary to decide.
Because MCL 691.1404(1) did not require Plaintiff to identify a witness whose name she did not know, her notice satisfied the statue. Therefore, the Court declines to address their substantial compliance would have been enough. The Court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary disposition.
