Michigan Supreme Court Says Sidewalk Metal Hazard Not Subject To Governmental Immunity

Kenneth Mann v City of Detroit

• Order Released: June 11, 2025

• Docket No. 166619

• Wayne County Circuit Court

• Per curiam order of the Michigan Supreme Court

Holding: The city of Detroit was not entitled to summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity after the Court determined that a metal stub protruding out of a paved sidewalk constituted a “sidewalk defect” and created “a dangerous condition.” The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded to the trial court.

Facts: Plaintiff Kenneth Mann sued the City of Detroit after suffering an  injury from a circular metal stub that was sticking out of the sidewalk. Plaintiff was walking down a Detroit sidewalk when he looked behind him to see if a bus was coming. He tripped over a metal stub that was over five inches tall and four inches wide. The protrusion caused Plaintiff to fall backwards, seriously injuring both his back and neck. The metal stub had been left over from a street sign which had been installed before the sidewalk was put in place.

Plaintiff brought suit against the city for failing to properly maintain the sidewalk as required by MCL 691.1402a of the governmental tort liability act. In support of summary disposition , the city argued that the hazard was “open and obvious” and that, because the signpost was not originally part of the sidewalk, it did not apply under the sidewalk exception to governmental immunity. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to how well the sidewalk had been reasonably maintained and repaired and  agreed with Plaintiff that the stub was an imperfection in the actual sidewalk.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the signpost had not been part of the original sidewalk. Therefore, the sidewalk defect exception to governmental immunity did not apply. Plaintiff appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Key Appellate Ruling:

The metal stub protruding from the sidewalk was a defect in the sidewalk under MCL 691.1402a. Therefore, the sidewalk exception to governmental immunity applied.

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the sidewalk exception applied to Plaintiff’s claim. On appeal, the Court looked at the sidewalk exception detailed in MCL 691.1402a to determine whether the metal stub was either a “defect” in the sidewalk or created a “dangerous condition.” This sidewalk exception presumes that the municipality has reasonably maintained the sidewalk and only allows for rebuttal if there is “evidence of facts showing that a proximate cause of the injury” was created by either or both a 2 inch “vertical discontinuity defect” or a “dangerous condition.”  The Court recognized that, while historically municipalities have been found liable for defects in sidewalks, the 2012 amendment to 691.1402a imposed “an affirmative duty on municipalities to maintain all public sidewalks in reasonable repair.”

The Supreme Court held that the metal stub created a “vertical discontinuity defect of 2 inches or more,” reiterating that the stub was measured to be over 5 inches tall. The Court cited MCL 691.1402a(3)(b), stating that the stub created a “dangerous condition in the sidewalk itself” because the metal stub was embedded in concrete. The Court reasoned that “[r]ecognizing this unique hazard as actionable under MCL 691.1402a(3) not only aligns with the Legislature’s intent to impose liability for sidewalk defects but also underscores the city’s failure to address a safety risk embedded in the middle of the pedestrian pathway.”

Justice Clement’s concurring opinion highlighted the condition by including a picture of the metal stub next to a 12 oz soda can.

Justice Zahra dissented.