Woman's injury claim summarily dismissed for lack of proof that City knew of bumpy area under repair
Vivian Ellerbee sued the City of Detroit, alleging that the surface of a road not identified in the appeal opinion was defective. She argued that the road was in such poor condition that the city, exercising reasonable diligence, must have known that it was no longer fit for travel. She provided photographs of the pot-holed condition of the road surface where she was hurt and also provided evidence that the area was under repair at the time of her injury.
The trial judge rejected the City's claim for summary disposition, but the Court of Appeals reversed. It ruled that Ellerbee's evidence was not adequate to prove that the condition had existed long enough to confirm that the City should have known that the road was no longer fit for travel. It relied on the City's argument that the City had cold-patched areas of the road two weeks earlier and had received no complaints since that time.