Valeria Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights

Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan 48909
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
C hief Just ice Justices
Maura D . Corrigan Michael F. Cavanagh

Opinion
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Clifford W. Taylor
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FILED JUNE 12, 2001

VALERIA HALIW and

ILKO HALIW,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v No. 115686

THE CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

MARKMAN, J.

We granted defendant city of Sterling Heights’

application for leave to appeal in this case to decide the

proper application of the “natural accumulation” doctrine to

municipal liability. Because we conclude that the natural

accumulation of ice or snow on the sidewalk at issue does not

give rise to an actionable breach of defendant’s duty, and the

claimed depression in the sidewalk was not an independent

defect, plaintiff cannot prove the elements required to

establish a negligence claim against a governmental agency.1

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals,

and remand to the Macomb Circuit Court for entry of an order

granting summary disposition in favor of defendant.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On January 29, 1996, plaintiff was walking on a snow

covered sidewalk located in her neighborhood. Plaintiff

claims that she slipped and fell on a patch of ice that had

formed on the sidewalk.2 Apparently, the ice had formed in a

depressed portion where two sections of the sidewalk met.

According to plaintiff, it had snowed before the incident, and

the sidewalk had not yet been shoveled.

Anna Marson, plaintiff’s neighbor and the homeowner

nearest the portion of sidewalk at issue here, stated that,

although the depression at the joint of the two cement slabs

allowed water to settle, there was no raised edge or gap

between the two slabs, and neither slab was actually broken.

According to Marson, even in the winter, when “it just snows

it would melt and there would be nothing [i.e., no ice] there.

1
Throughout this opinion, "plaintiff" refers to Valeria

Haliw. The loss of consortium claim of Ilko Haliw, plaintiff's

husband, is derivative in nature.

2
At her deposition, plaintiff admitted that she slipped

on the ice patch; she did not trip on, or over, anything

relating to the actual physical condition of the sidewalk

itself.

But this [time], it happened to rain [before plaintiff’s slip

and fall] and there was ice . . . .” Marson, who provided aid

to plaintiff just after her fall, stated that plaintiff told

her that she had slipped on the ice that had formed on the

sidewalk.

Plaintiff retained an engineering expert, Theodore

Dziurman, who performed an inspection of the portion of

sidewalk upon which plaintiff claimed ice had formed.3

According to Dziurman, there was a “depression” where two

slabs of the concrete sidewalk met, although he stated that

there was no separation between the two slabs, and that “it

[was] not any different than [a] normal joint, not unusual.”

It was Dziurman’s opinion that, because of the presence of the

depression, water was allowed to “pond” at that point

resulting in the formation of ice under the proper weather

conditions. When Dziurman was asked if the depression

presented a dangerous or defective condition in the sidewalk

in the absence of ice, the following colloquy ensued:

Q. When there is no rain and no freezing, is

there anything particularly defective or dangerous

about that condition in and of itself?

A. It could be dangerous to someone that

wasn’t expecting a depression there that could

throw them off stride when they are walking causing

them to stumble or fall. Someone riding on a

We note that Theodore Dziurman’s inspection of the

sidewalk occurred on July 2, 1997.

bicycle if they are going real fast, they could hit

the bottom of that thing and cause the bike to go

out of control. There are possibilities of other

accident potential because of that sunken

condition.

Q. Do you have any information any of those

things ever happened to that sidewalk slab?

A. No, I don’t.

Q. Your statements about what could happen

are theoretical; correct?

A. I think you asked me that.

As a result of her fall, plaintiff suffered a broken

ankle that required surgical intervention and thereafter

initiated a lawsuit against defendant. In response, defendant

filed a motion for summary disposition, brought pursuant to

MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10). The trial court denied defendant’s

motion, and the Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion,

affirmed, stating that

[i]n addition to the presence of snow and ice,

plaintiffs allege there was a defect in the

sidewalk itself, and therefore their claim is not

barred by the natural accumulation doctrine . . . .

Here, plaintiffs presented evidence creating a

genuine issue of material fact regarding whether

the sidewalk where [plaintiff] fell was reasonably

safe for public travel. [Issued October 5, 1999

(Docket No. 206886), slip op at 1-2.]

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the grant or denial of summary disposition de

novo. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817

(1999). “MCR 2.116(C)(7) tests whether a claim is barred

because of immunity granted by law, and requires consideration

of all documentary evidence filed or submitted by the

parties.” Glancy v Roseville , 457 Mich 580, 583; 577 NW2d

897 (1998).

In reviewing a motion for summary disposition brought

under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we must consider the affidavits,

pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence

filed in the action or submitted by the parties in the light

most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Quinto v

Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996).

Summary disposition may be granted if the evidence

demonstrates that there is no genuine issue with respect to

any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Id. As with motions for summary

disposition, we also review questions of statutory

construction de novo as questions of law. Donajkowski v

Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 248; 596 NW2d 574 (1999).

III. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY

The governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1401 et

seq., provides immunity for governmental agencies, including

municipalities like defendant. It is well settled in this

state that governmental agencies are immune from tort

liability while engaging in a governmental function unless an

exception applies.4 MCL 691.1407; Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd

Comm, 463 Mich 143, 156; 615 NW2d 702 (2000); Suttles v Dep’t

of Transportation, 457 Mich 635, 641; 578 NW2d 295 (1998);

Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 591;

363 NW2d 641 (1984). The immunity conferred on governmental

agencies is broad, and the exceptions narrowly drawn.5

Nawrocki, supra at 149; Ross, supra at 618.

The only exception implicated in the present case is the

so-called “highway exception” to governmental immunity, which

is set forth in MCL 691.1402, and provides in part:

Each governmental agency having jurisdiction

over a highway shall maintain the highway in

reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and

convenient for public travel. 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.[6]

4
The five statutory exceptions to governmental immunity

are: the “highway exception,” MCL 691.1402, the “motor vehicle

exception,” MCL 691.1405, the “public building exception,” MCL

691.1406, the “proprietary function exception,” MCL 691.1413,

and the “governmental hospital exception,” MCL 691.1407(4).

Although governmental agencies may be under a wide

variety of duties, with regard to services that they provide

to the public, only those enumerated within the statutorily

created exceptions are legally compensable if breached. MCL

691.1407; Nawrocki, supra at 157.

Plaintiff’s accident occurred on January 29, 1996.

Accordingly, the statutory language applicable in this case is

that found in 1990 PA 278, § 1, effective December 11, 1990,

rather than the current statutory language, which was enacted

(continued...)

Pursuant to subsection 1402(1), the duty to maintain public

sidewalks in “reasonable repair” falls on local governments,

including cities, villages, and townships. See Chaney v Dep’t

of Transportation, 447 Mich 145, 172, n 2; 523 NW2d 762

(1994); Mason v Wayne Co Bd of Comm'rs, 447 Mich 130, 136, n

6; 523 NW2d 791 (1994). Accordingly, a municipality’s

maintenance and repair of its sidewalks is the performance of

a governmental function. MCL 691.1401(f).7

However, as we noted in Suttles, simply asserting that an

action falls within the “highway exception” to governmental

immunity is not the end of the analysis:

In every instance where a plaintiff alleges a

cause of action based on the highway exception to

governmental immunity, MCL 691.1402(1); MSA

3.996(102)(1), the court must engage in a two-step

analysis. [Id. at 651, n 10.]

First, it must be determined whether the plaintiff has pleaded

6
(...continued)

by 1999 PA 205, and which became effective regarding causes of

action arising on or after December 21, 1999.

7
For purposes of application of the highway exception to

a municipality, MCL 691.1401 provides: (1) “governmental

agency” means the state or a “political subdivision”; (2)

“political subdivision” means a “municipal corporation”; and

(3) “municipal corporation” means a “city, village, or

township.” Subsection 1401(a),(b),(d). Moreover, “highway”

means a public highway, road, or street that is open for

public travel and includes bridges, sidewalks, trailways,

crosswalks, and culverts on the highway. Subsection 1401(e).

“Governmental function,” as used in the governmental immunity

act, is “an activity that is expressly or impliedly mandated

or authorized by constitution, statute, local charter or

ordinance, or other law.” Subsection 1401(f).

a cause of action in avoidance of governmental immunity.

Second, where a plaintiff successfully pleads in avoidance of

governmental immunity, i.e., that the alleged injury occurred

in a location encompassed by MCL 691.1402(1), the plaintiff

must still prove, consistent with traditional negligence

principles, the remaining elements of breach, causation, and

damages contained within the statute. Id., see also Nawrocki,

supra at 172, n 29. The statute at issue contains the duty

element of these principles; namely, the duty of a

municipality to “maintain” the sidewalk “in reasonable repair

so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public

travel.” MCL 691.1402(1).8 See Johnson v Pontiac, 276 Mich

103, 105; 267 NW 795 (1936), explaining that “[t]he liability

of cities for this class of cases is statutory . . . and it is

the duty of defendant to keep its sidewalk in repair.”

Concepts such as the “natural accumulation” doctrine, see

below, are pertinent to this second step of the analysis. See

Johnson, supra, stating that a plaintiff cannot recover if an

injury is due “solely to the presence of ice or snow”

(emphasis added).

8
“Courts should take care not to confuse their separate

inquiries into [governmental] immunity and negligence.” Canon

v Thumudo, 430 Mich 326, 335; 422 NW2d 688 (1988).

IV. THE NATURAL ACCUMULATION DOCTRINE

“It has long been the law in this state . . . that a

governmental agency’s failure to remove the natural

accumulations of ice and snow on a public highway does not

signal negligence of that public authority.” Stord v

Transportation Dep’t, 186 Mich App 693, 694; 465 NW2d 54

(1991). The following cases present an overview of the

“natural accumulation” doctrine as it relates to public

sidewalks, and municipal defendants.

In Mayo v Village of Baraga, 178 Mich 171; 144 NW 517

(1913), the plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for

injuries sustained as a result of falling on ice and snow on

a sidewalk. This Court determined that

[i]f a liability exists, it is because of a defect

in the [sidewalk]; and, if ice frozen upon a

sidewalk is a defect when it is caused by water

flowing from a roof, why should it not be when it

flows from a vacant lot, or when it falls upon the

[side]walk, or is caused by the melting of snow

upon or adjoining such a walk? If the liability of

a city for damages resulting from a failure to keep

its highways in a reasonably safe condition for

travel extends to cases where such condition is not

ascribable to defects in the construction and

maintenance of the way, or to the action of the

officers to the city or their negligence in the

performance of a duty, it may be contended that

cities must cause the streets to be patrolled, in

search of bricks or coals that fall from wagons,

for the treacherous banana peel, upon which the

unwary are sure to slip, and for tacks or bits of

glass or other rubbish, which puncture the tires of

bicycles. [S]uch are not defects in the highway.

[Id. at 173-174.]

In Hopson v Detroit, 235 Mich 248; 209 NW 161 (1926), a

case involving facts similar to the instant one, the plaintiff

was walking on a public sidewalk. There was a depression in

the sidewalk where the concrete had settled and disintegrated;

this condition made the sidewalk lower in the center. In this

depression, water from natural causes had settled, with ice at

the bottom and a thin layer of water on top. The plaintiff

slipped on the ice that had formed in the depression, fell and

was injured. The plaintiff’s theory of liability was that

when two causes combine to produce an injury to a traveler

upon a public sidewalk, both of which are in their nature

proximate–the one being a defect in the sidewalk, and the

other some occurrence for which neither party is

responsible–the municipality is liable, provided the injury

would not have been sustained but for the defect. Id. at 250.

This Court concluded that the defendant was not liable for the

plaintiff’s injury.

Stating that “[i]n order to employ the doctrine of a

slippery place precipitating into an unsafe place, there must

be an unsafe place to slip into,” this Court held that the

rule obtaining in Michigan places no liability upon the

municipality for ice forming in this way. Id. Rather, the

rule under which a plaintiff could recover is that where two

causes combine to produce an injury to a pedestrian using a

sidewalk, one of the causes at least must be a defect in the

sidewalk rendering the sidewalk not reasonably safe for public

travel at any time. “Ice on a sidewalk, whether on level

places or in depressions, constitutes no defect entailing

liability.” Id. at 250-251 (emphasis added). The depression,

no matter what caused it, did not render the sidewalk out of

repair “within the meaning of our statute relative to the duty

of defendant to keep the walk in repair and reasonably safe

for public travel.” Id. at 251.

In determining that the plaintiff in Hopson could not

prevail, this Court stated that

wherever ice or snow is the sole proximate cause of

the accident, there shall be no liability, but

where at the time of the accident there is any

other defect to which, as a proximate cause, the

accident is in part attributable, there may be a

liability notwithstanding the fact that it also may

be attributable in part to ice or snow. This other

defect, however, is not a proximate cause within

the meaning of this rule, simply because it causes

the accumulation of the ice or snow. In

considering whether, “at the time of the accident,

the way is otherwise reasonably safe and

convenient,” the attention is to be directed to the

actual physical condition of the way for the

purpose of ascertaining whether there is at that

time any other danger to the steps of the traveler

than that arising from the presence of ice or snow;

if there be no other danger, then for the time

being the way is “otherwise reasonably safe and

convenient.” [Id. at 252, quoting Newton v

Worcester, 174 Mass 181, 187; 54 NE 521

(1899)(emphasis added).]

In Johnson, supra, the plaintiff suffered injuries as the

result of a fall sustained while walking over or around a

piece of defective sidewalk. There was an accumulation of ice

and snow upon the sidewalk. The claimed defect in the

sidewalk, an upheaval, was likely caused by the roots of a

nearby tree. Applying 1929 CL 4223, which established a duty

within the defendant to keep its sidewalks in reasonable

repair, this Court determined that where the plaintiff’s slip

and fall was due solely to the presence of the ice and snow,

she could not prevail in her cause of action against the

governmental agency. Id. at 105 (emphasis added).

Accordingly, the natural accumulation doctrine provides

that a governmental agency’s failure to remove ice or snow

from a highway does not, by itself, constitute negligence.

Pursuant to this doctrine, plaintiff must prove that there was

an existing defect in the sidewalk rendering it not reasonably

safe for public travel.

V. ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION

Turning to the present case, we apply this longstanding

rule and conclude that the natural accumulation of ice on the

sidewalk, without more, did not constitute a breach of

defendant’s statutory duty to maintain the sidewalk in

reasonable repair. Further, plaintiff cannot prove that her

injuries resulted from a defect on the sidewalk, as distinct

from the accumulation of ice.9 Although plaintiff has

The dissent’s dominant theme is that we have invaded

the province of the finder of fact by concluding that the

accumulation of ice at this location was natural. In support

of this, the dissent asserts that “[a] determination whether

the sidewalk was in ‘reasonable repair’ is a precursor to the

issue whether the accumulation was natural, which is a

precursor to application of the natural accumulation

doctrine.” Slip op at 5. The dissent also sets forth

plaintiff’s expert’s reference to the accumulation of ice that

occurred here as an “unnatural accumulation,” and further

asserts that whether the claimed depression was a defect

rendering the sidewalk not reasonably safe was a question of

fact. Slip op at 6-7. This, in our judgment, is an incorrect

analysis of the law.

In Hopson this Court rejected the dissent’s argument that

a depression that allows water to accumulate and freeze is an

underlying defect precluding application of the natural

accumulation doctrine. “Ice on a sidewalk, whether on level

places or in depressions, constitutes no defect entailing

liability.” Id. at 250-251 (emphasis added). The Court

continued: “[t]he rule, and the only rule, under which

plaintiff could recover is that, where two causes combine to

produce an injury to a pedestrian using a sidewalk, one of the

causes at least must be a defect in the walk, rendering the

walk not reasonably safe for public travel at any time.” Id.

at 250 (emphasis added). As the Supreme Court of

Massachusetts observed in Newton, supra at 187, a case upon

which Hopson relied:

[T]he real question is not simply whether the

way, with no ice or snow upon it, is defective, but

whether, if there be such a defect, it was

operative as such at the time of the accident, and

was in part the proximate cause of it. If there be

such an operative defect, then there may be a

liability, even although the accident be due in

part to ice or snow; otherwise, there is no such

liability, even if the defect was the cause of the

accumulation of ice or snow.

Therefore, an independent defect, other than the accumulation

of ice or snow, must be at least a proximate cause of a

plaintiff’s injury in order for the plaintiff to recover under

the statute. It is clear from the testimony of plaintiff,

(continued...)

properly pleaded that her claim falls within the “highway

exception” to governmental immunity found in MCL 691.1402(1),

she cannot establish an injury caused by a defect in the

sidewalk under traditional negligence principles.

Specifically, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the claimed

depression was a proximate cause of her slip and fall for

purposes of the highway exception under the rule set forth in

Hopson, supra.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a

plaintiff must be able to prove four elements: (1) a duty owed

by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty,

(3) causation, and (4) damages. Schultz v Consumers Power Co,

443 Mich 445, 449; 506 NW2d 175 (1993). Proof of causation

requires both cause in fact and legal, or proximate, cause.

Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 162-163; 516 NW2d 475

(1994); Davis v Thornton, 384 Mich 138, 145; 180 NW2d 11

(1970). Cause in fact requires that the harmful result would

not have come about but for the defendant's negligent conduct.

Skinner, supra at 163, citing Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th

ed), § 41, p 266). “On the other hand, legal cause or

9
(...continued)

plaintiff’s expert, and the eyewitness, that there was no such

defect that proximately caused plaintiff’s fall in the instant

case. Thus, we conclude in accord with Hopson, that plaintiff

failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact whether

a defect, rather than the accumulated ice alone, caused her

injury.

‘proximate cause’ normally involves examining the

foreseeability of consequences, and whether a defendant should

be held legally responsible for such consequences.” Skinner,

supra at 163. Here, in our judgment, plaintiff cannot

demonstrate that her injury was caused by a breach of the duty

set forth in MCL 691.1402(1).

As in Hopson, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that it was

the combination of ice and a defect in the sidewalk that

caused her to slip and fall. See id. at 250-252. Plaintiff

admitted, with Anna Marson’s testimony supporting the

admission, that she slipped on the ice that was present on the

sidewalk; she did not trip over, or lose her balance in any

way because of the claimed depression in the sidewalk. The

sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s slip and fall was the ice;

there was no persistent defect in the sidewalk rendering it

unsafe for public travel at all times that, in combination

with the ice, caused the incident.10

10
Even if we were to assume that the claimed depression

here represented a condition that rendered the sidewalk not

“reasonably safe for public travel” at all times, under the

facts of the present case the natural accumulation of ice in

the depression effectively vitiated the unsafe condition

presented by the depression itself.

This point, perhaps, is better illustrated by way of

example. Under the first scenario, a six-foot deep hole

exists in the middle of a sidewalk. Water naturally

accumulates in the top of the hole and, because of the weather

conditions, freezes so that, in effect, the hole no longer

exists. While walking upon the sidewalk, an individual steps

(continued...)

Simply put, a plaintiff cannot recover in a claim against

a governmental agency where the sole proximate cause of the

slip and fall is the natural accumulation of ice or snow.

This is true even where the ice or snow naturally accumulates

in a portion of the highway (i.e., sidewalk) that was

otherwise not “reasonably safe and convenient for public

travel . . . .” Hopson, supra at 250. Rather, there must

exist the combination of the ice or snow and the defect that,

in tandem, proximately causes the slip and fall. Thus, even

if we accept plaintiff’s claim, in the present case, that a

depression in the sidewalk allowed the ice to form and be

present, we conclude that such a depression, under the facts

here, did not render the sidewalk out of repair within the

meaning of subsection 1402(1).11

10
(...continued)

on the ice, slips, and falls, thereby incurring injury. Under

this scenario, it can only be said that the sole proximate

cause of the slip and fall was the presence of the natural

accumulation of ice. A different outcome, however, would

present under a scenario where the same six-foot hole in the

sidewalk is present, but the ice forms several inches below

the top of the hole. While walking upon the sidewalk, an

individual steps on the edge of the hole, which causes him to

momentarily lose his balance. While attempting to remain

upright, this individual slips on the ice that had naturally

accumulated in the hole. Under this scenario, it must be said

that, in tandem, the defect and the natural accumulation of

ice combined to proximately cause the slip and fall.

11
The prevailing rule from Hopson, supra at 250-51,and

Johnson, supra at 105, is that a plaintiff cannot recover if

an injury is due solely to the presence of ice on the

sidewalk, even if a depression in the sidewalk caused the

(continued...)

VI. CONCLUSION

The claimed sidewalk depression in the present case

merely allowed the natural accumulation of ice to form, and

factually presented no “other danger to the steps of the

traveler than that arising from the presence of the ice . . .

.” Hopson, supra at 252. As in Hopson, we reject the

proposition that the presence of ice alone, which naturally

accumulates and which is the sole proximate cause of a slip

and fall, satisfies the remaining elements of the negligence

analysis employed in actions against governmental agencies.

In the absence of a persistent defect in the highway (i.e., a

sidewalk), rendering it unsafe for public travel at all times,

and which combines with the natural accumulation of ice or

snow to proximately cause injury, a plaintiff cannot prevail

against an otherwise immune municipality.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and we

remand this case to the Macomb Circuit Court for entry of an

order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

CORRIGAN , C.J., and WEAVER , TAYLOR , and YOUNG , JJ., concurred

11
(...continued)

accumulation. In such cases, the depression is not a

proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Hopson, supra at

250-251. Our law has developed this test specifically in the

context of the natural accumulation doctrine and the highway

exception to governmental immunity. MCL 691.1401(e).

Hopson’s formulation of proximate cause is limited to those

cases that have arisen in this specific context.

with MARKMAN , J.

18
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

SUPREME COURT

VALERIA HALIW and

ILKO HALIW,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v No. 115686

THE CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

KELLY, J. (dissenting).

I believe that plaintiffs established questions of fact

about whether (1) the claimed depression in the sidewalk

rendered the sidewalk no longer reasonably safe, (2) the ice

or snow on which Valeria Haliw fell was a "natural

accumulation," and (3) her injuries were proximately caused by

the sidewalk's condition.

The majority's resolution of these factual disputes is an

impermissible invasion into the province of the finder of

fact. Because the issues should be left for the finder of

fact, I would affirm the Court of Appeals decision that upheld

the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for summary

disposition.

In the proceedings below, defendant moved for summary

disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10). It argued that

summary disposition was proper because the natural

accumulation doctrine barred plaintiffs' claim, and there was

no defect in the sidewalk in question. Plaintiffs retorted

that there were questions of fact whether the sidewalk was

defective because the depression in it created an unnatural

accumulation of ice and snow. Therefore, they contended, the

natural accumulation doctrine has nothing to do with the case.

In denying defendant's motion, the trial court stated:

The Court: It seems [plaintiff] does have

someone who seems to have expertise–a great deal of

expertise who is saying it is a year-around defect,

not just an accumulation of ice and no defect if it

is a constant problem and he is going to testify to

that, and if that–from that this Court's specific

perspective raises an issue of fact, you are saying

that by a preponderance that doesn't meet the

standard?

I am not disposed to agree with your position

on that, so you have something else you would like

to make me aware of regarding why this isn't

something that a jury must listen to?

[Defendant's counsel]: I have nothing else

with regard to the expert, your honor. . . .

The Court: . . . [T]his Court does believe

that plaintiff has shown–this fact issue has been

raised by provisions raised by the expert and his

credentials and you [defendant] may provide your

own expert, but if a finder of fact should have the

opportunity, then, to weigh the issues in this

case, and I will deny the motion for summary

disposition.

In affirming, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant's

claim that the natural accumulation doctrine barred

plaintiffs' claim.1 It reasoned:

Defendant's argument fails, however, because

plaintiffs do not allege that Valeria Haliw fell

because of a natural accumulation of ice and snow.

Rather, plaintiffs claim that the fall was caused

by an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow

resulting from a depression in the sidewalk. Thus,

in addition to the presence of snow and ice,

plaintiffs allege that there was a defect in the

sidewalk itself, and therefore their claim is not

barred by the natural accumulation doctrine. [Slip

op, pp 1-2 (citation omitted).]

The appellate court disagreed, also, with defendant's

position that the alleged defect was insufficient to support

the imposition of liability. It reasoned that a factual

dispute existed whether the sidewalk where Valeria Haliw fell

was reasonably safe for public travel. It rejected as

unpersuasive defendant's argument disputing plaintiffs'

evidence, explaining that a court "may not assess credibility

or determine facts when considering a motion for summary

disposition." Id. at 2.

This Court reviews a trial court's decision concerning a

1
Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued October 5, 1999,

(Docket No. 206886).

summary disposition motion de novo. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich

109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Summary disposition is proper

under MCR 2.116(C)(7) where a claim is barred because of

immunity granted by law.

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support

of a plaintiff's claim. See Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460

Mich 446, 454; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). In reviewing it, the court

considers the pleadings, affidavits, and other documentary

evidence filed or submitted by the parties in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party. The motion is granted if the

documentary evidence shows that no genuine issue of material

fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as

a matter of law. See Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich

331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). Courts may not determine facts

on a motion for summary disposition. Questions of fact must be

settled by the finder of fact. See Zamler v Smith, 375 Mich

675, 679; 135 NW2d 349 (1965); Miller v Miller, 373 Mich 519,

526; 129 NW2d 885 (1964).

III

A government agency has a statutory duty to keep highways

under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair so that they are

reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. MCL

691.1402(1). At least in a municipal setting, a "highway" is

defined to include sidewalks. MCL 691.1401(e).

Here, it is undisputed that plaintiffs' claim falls

within the "highway exception" to governmental immunity found

in MCL 691.1402(1). Nevertheless, the majority determines that

summary disposition in favor of defendant is proper. It

reasons that the "claimed depression in the sidewalk was not

an independent defect . . . ." It asserts, also, that the

natural accumulation of ice or snow on the sidewalk does not

give rise to an actionable breach of defendant's duty. Slip op

at 1.

I agree that the presence of a natural accumulation of

ice or snow does not, itself, constitute a breach of the

municipality's statutory duty. However, it is debatable

whether the accumulation in the present case can be deemed

"natural." A determination whether the sidewalk was in

"reasonable repair" is a precursor to the issue whether the

accumulation was natural, which is a precursor to application

of the natural accumulation doctrine.2 Therefore, a proper

resolution of this case must begin with a decision whether, as

a question of fact, the sidewalk was in "reasonable repair."

In opposition to defendant's summary disposition motion,

plaintiffs introduced a report from their expert, Theodore

2
See Whinnen v 231 Corporation, 49 Mich App 371, 376-377;

212 NW2d 297 (1973), discussing the relevance of photographs

to the issue of "the combination of defective construction,

inadequate maintenance [of a sidewalk], and a consequent

unnatural or artificial accumulation of ice or snow."

Dziurman. Dziurman noted that his inspection of the sidewalk

revealed the following:

The second and third slabs north of the

driveway [the site where plaintiff fell3] had

settled about 2 inches. Water would accumulate in

this depression.

He then recited what he thought transpired in this case:

Based on [plaintiff's] deposition transcript,

she most likely slipped on an "unnatural"

accumulation of ice which caused her to fall.

However, on the date of the accident, there was

also a trip hazard at the same location . . . .

* * *

. . . I believe that [plaintiff's] apparent

slip and fall occurred due primarily to "defects in

the walking surface." Due to either poor compaction

of the "base" material beneath the sidewalk and/or

due to past tree root growth, at least 2 of the

sidewalk slabs at this location had settled

resulting in an unnatural depression in the

sidewalk.

Finally, Dziurman summarized his findings as follows:

There were several defects in the sidewalk in

front of 36225 Arlene, Sterling Heights, Michigan,

in January of 1996. These defects had existed for

several years. The most significant defect was a

settlement of two slabs resulting in a depression

that would pond water or ice in a 2 or 3 square

foot area. This depression was not normal and if

the sidewalk sections had been properly constructed

and maintained, there would not have been a

depression in the sidewalk sections noted on

3
In the complaint, plaintiffs claimed that Valeria fell

because of a depression in the sidewalk, among other things.

Anna Marson, the homeowner nearest the sidewalk, testified

that she helped Valeria to her feet after she fell and thought

that she had gone down where the depression existed in the

sidewalk.

January 29, 1996 which created an unnatural

accumulation of ice.

Based on weather data for January of 1996,

there was a source and proper temperatures to allow

ice to form. In the a.m. of January 29, light snow

had obscured the ice. As [plaintiff] walked along

the public sidewalk in front of 36225 Arlene, her

foot accidentally landed on the unnatural

accumulation of unseen ice causing her to slip and

fall. . . .

The defects in the walking surface allowed ice

to form and these defects were the proximate cause

of [plaintiff's] accident. [Emphasis added.]

In support of its motion, defendant argued that the

report was insufficient to create a factual dispute regarding

the sidewalk's condition. Also, it introduced testimony from

the homeowner nearest the sidewalk, who stated that there was

nothing dangerous about the sidewalk absent snow or ice.

Plaintiffs countered with Dziurman's testimony that the

sidewalk, without snow or ice, "could be dangerous" to

pedestrians or bicyclists who were not expecting a depression.

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to

plaintiffs, the nonmoving parties below, a jury could infer

that the sidewalk's depression rendered it out of "reasonable

repair."4 Thus, a question of fact existed whether defendant

4
See Cornell v City of Ypsilanti, 212 Mich 540, 547; 180

NW 405 (1920), recognizing that "while a municipality is not

liable, as matter of law, for slight depressions in its

sidewalks, such depressions may be of such size, shape and

character as to make the question one of fact" for the jury to

determine. See also Williams v Bay City, 126 Mich 156, 156
(continued...)

breached its statutory duty under MCL 691.1402. See Miller,

supra at 525 (Souris, J., concurring), citing Grand Trunk R Co

v Ives, 144 US 408, 417; 12 S Ct 679; 36 L Ed 485 (1892),

stating that "[u]nless a judge can properly say that all

reasonable men would agree from the undisputed evidentiary

facts that there was or was not negligence, the issue must be

submitted for jury determination . . . ."5

The factual dispute regarding whether the sidewalk was in

reasonable repair consequently creates a question of fact

whether there was a "natural accumulation" in this case. See

Navarre v Benton Harbor, 126 Mich 618, 619-620; 86 NW 138

(1901), holding that whether the defendant city breached its

statutory duty to keep its sidewalks in reasonable repair must

4
(...continued)

157; 85 NW 458 (1901).

5
See Pappas v Bay City, 17 Mich App 745, 752-753; 170

NW2d 306 (1969), where the plaintiff introduced evidence that

she stepped on ice covered by snow that had accumulated in a

depression of a sidewalk of at least 2-3/8 inches. The court

held that this evidence created a question for the jury (1)

whether the defendant city breached its statutory duty to keep

the sidewalk in reasonable repair, (2) whether the defect, if

it existed, caused the accumulation of ice, and (3) whether

this was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Cf.

Hopson v Detroit, 235 Mich 248, 251; 209 NW 161 (1926), where

the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice that had accumulated in

a depression in a public sidewalk. The plaintiff sued the

defendant city, claiming that it was liable for breaching its

duty to keep its sidewalk in reasonable repair. We held that

a directed verdict in favor of the defendant city was proper

because the plaintiff had failed to establish a "culpable

defect in the [side]walk."

be left for the jury. In that case, the evidence justified the

jury's inference that the sidewalk's "depressed condition . .

. was such as to induce the formation of ice in unusual

quantities . . . ."6 Therefore, by determining that the

sidewalk was not defective and that this case concerns a

"natural accumulation" of ice or snow, the majority has

impermissibly invaded the province of the factfinder. See

Zamler, supra at 679; Miller, supra at 524.

Alternatively, the majority asserts, even if the

depression in the sidewalk rendered it no longer reasonably

safe, the natural accumulation of ice or snow here

"effectively vitiated the unsafe condition." Slip op at 15, n

10. This assertion is flawed because it is based on a premise

that the accumulation here was "natural." Again, the question

of fact regarding the defective nature of the sidewalk

precludes making such a determination. See Zamler, supra at

679.

Finally, the majority states that summary disposition for

defendant is appropriate because plaintiffs cannot demonstrate

6
See also Whinnen, supra at 377, "[i]n almost every case

whether the condition was due to a natural accumulation or an

artificial or unnatural accumulation or condition is one of

fact for the jury." Cf. Woodworth v Brenner, 69 Mich App 277,

281; 244 NW2d 446 (1976), summary disposition in favor of the

defendant city was proper where the only defect that the

plaintiff alleged in the sidewalk was the presence of ice; the

plaintiff failed to allege some defect in the sidewalk itself.

that the claimed depression was the proximate cause of the

fall under Hopson, supra. The trial court made no findings

regarding proximate cause. The parties never argued this

issue. Instead, their arguments concerned whether the sidewalk

was in reasonable repair and whether the natural accumulation

doctrine applied. Therefore, I believe it improper to decide

the instant matter on proximate cause grounds. See Miller,

supra.7

Nevertheless, given the evidence presented below,

particularly although not exclusively Dziurman's report, a

factual dispute exists whether Valeria Haliw's injuries were

proximately caused by the condition of the sidewalk. Thus,

defendant is not entitled to summary disposition on this

basis, either.8

Plaintiffs established a genuine factual dispute

7
Moreover, the majority's reliance on Hopson is

misplaced. Hopson held that there was no evidence of an actual

defect in the sidewalk. See id. at 251; see also Pappas, supra

at 752, stating that, to reconcile Hopson with other cases

from this Court, it should be read as holding that no actual

defect was shown. Hence, Hopson does not control where, as

here, there is evidence of an actual defect in the sidewalk.

8
See Johnson v Marquette, 154 Mich 50, 53-54; 117 NW 658

(1908), finding whether a sidewalk's condition was the

proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury was a question

properly left for the jury. The record showed that the

sidewalk contained an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow.