Road repair case is dismissed despite testimony confirming notice

Thomasine Martin fell and was injured while crossing the street next to her church. She maintained that her fall was caused by the ragged condition of the crosswalk  and the City of Ecorse's failure to maintain it in a reasonably safe condition.  Martin provided the City with prompt notice of the condition, as required by law.  She also provided the City with photographs taken of the area and testimony from her minister who confirmed that the condition had persisted for well over the mandatory 30 days necessary to give reasonable notice and create a duty to repair. The minister also confirmed that he had complained about the condition of the crosswalk to City authorities prior to Martin's fall.

The City argued that it should be granted summary disposition because while Martin had documented the condition, she had not documented that the City had notice of the road being "not reasonably safe for public travel."  The trial judge disagreed and set the case for trial.  The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial judge and overturned his decision on appeal.  It held that Martin's proofs weren't sufficient to create a question of fact over whether the City had notice that the road wasn't reasonably safe.