Embedded Objects as Sidewalk Defects:
Kenneth Mann v. City of Detroit (Mich. 2025)

Introduction

In Kenneth Mann v. City of Detroit, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether a metal sign-post stub protruding from a public sidewalk constitutes a “defect” or “dangerous condition in the sidewalk itself” under the sidewalk exception to governmental immunity, codified at MCL 691.1402a. Reversing the Court of Appeals, the Court held that the five-inch-high, four-inch-wide stub squarely fits within both statutory categories, stripping the City of Detroit of immunity at the summary-disposition stage and remanding for further proceedings.

The decision provides much-needed clarification following the Legislature’s 2012 and 2016 amendments to MCL 691.1402a, and effectively broadens municipal liability by confirming that hazards embedded in the walking surface—though not part of the pavement mixture—are nonetheless “in the sidewalk” for purposes of the statute.

Summary of the Judgment

• Issue Presented: Whether a sign-post stub embedded in but protruding above a public sidewalk is a sidewalk “defect” under MCL 691.1402a, thereby triggering the statutory exception to governmental immunity.
• Holding: Yes. The stub created (i) a “vertical discontinuity defect of 2 inches or more” under § 1402a(3)(a) and (ii) a “dangerous condition in the sidewalk itself” under § 1402a(3)(b). Consequently, the City is not entitled to summary disposition based on immunity under MCR 2.116(C)(7).
• Disposition: Part II(B)(2) of the Court of Appeals decision was reversed; case remanded to Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings.
• Vote: Majority order; Chief Justice Cavanagh and Justices Bernstein, Welch, Bolden, Thomas concurring; Justice Zahra dissented; Justice Hood not participating.

Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Ray v. Swager, 501 Mich 52 (2017) – Reaffirmed de novo standard for reviewing summary-disposition rulings and immunity questions.
• Sunrise Resort Ass’n v. Cheboygan Cty. Rd. Comm., 511 Mich 325 (2023) – Clarified that, under MCR 2.116(C)(7), the complaint’s allegations are accepted unless contradicted by record evidence.
• Ross v. Consumers Power Co., 420 Mich 567 (1984) – Long-standing principle that GTLA immunity is broad and exceptions are narrowly construed.
• LaMeau v. Royal Oak, 490 Mich 949 (2011) – Previously limited sidewalk “defects” to irregularities in walking surface; distinguished but not overruled.
• Robinson v. City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (2010) – Interpreted earlier “two-inch rule” under former versions of § 1402a.
• Weaver v. Detroit, 252 Mich App 239 (2002) & Ali v. Detroit, 218 Mich App 581 (1996) – Both denied liability for fixtures adjacent to sidewalks; relied upon by the Court of Appeals dissent and by Justice Zahra but rejected as factually distinguishable.

The Court emphasized fidelity to statutory text, citing Rouch World, LLC v. Dep’t of Civil Rights, 510 Mich 398 (2022), for the proposition that courts must begin with the Legislature’s language rather than analogize to factual predecessors. This textualist lens allowed the majority to bypass older fixture cases and focus on whether the stub’s physical placement satisfied “in the sidewalk” language.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Framework
   MCL 691.1407(1) grants broad immunity; § 1402a carves out a narrow exception for sidewalks. Under § 1402a(3), municipalities enjoy a presumption of reasonable repair unless the plaintiff shows either:
   • (a) Vertical discontinuity ≥ 2 inches; or
   • (b) A dangerous condition “in the sidewalk itself” of a different character.
2. Textual Interpretation
   The Court rejected the City’s argument that “sidewalk” equals only the paved concrete. The phrase “in the sidewalk” lacks limiting pavement-only language, and § 1401(f) merely confines liability to public and paved sidewalks, not to “pavement alone.”
3. Application to Facts
   The stub—five inches high—created a vertical displacement more than double the statutory threshold, satisfying § 1402a(3)(a). Because it was embedded mid-panel, it also satisfied § 1402a(3)(b) as a hazardous obstruction occupying the walking surface.
4. Policy Alignment
   The 2012 amendments were designed to impose an affirmative maintenance duty and abandon the blanket two-inch immunity of the earlier statute. Recognizing embedded protrusions as actionable defects furthers legislative intent to protect pedestrians from non-trivial sidewalk hazards.

C. Impact of the Decision

• Municipal Maintenance Practices: Local governments must now inspect for and remove embedded fixtures—even non-pavement materials—that project ≥2” into walking surfaces.
• Litigation Landscape: Plaintiffs can proceed past the immunity stage when injuries arise from protrusions physically integrated with sidewalks, shifting focus to notice, causation, and comparative fault rather than immunity.
• Open-and-Obvious Defense Remains: § 1402a(5) still permits common-law premises defenses. Municipalities will likely emphasize visibility of protrusions to mitigate liability.
• Clarification of Pre-LaMeau Ambiguities: The Court signaled that partial embedding suffices; total integration with pavement is unnecessary. Older fixture cases (e.g., Weaver, Ali) may be confined to hazards adjacent to, rather than within, the walking surface.
• Legislative Response: Should municipalities deem the ruling too onerous, statutory amendment would be required, underscoring the Court’s deferential stance toward legislative text.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA): A Michigan statute granting governmental bodies broad immunity from tort lawsuits, unless a legislatively-defined exception applies.
• Sidewalk Exception (MCL 691.1402a): One such exception, imposing a duty on municipalities to keep public sidewalks reasonably safe.
• Vertical Discontinuity: A change in elevation between two surfaces—in sidewalks, typically a height difference due to cracks, heaves, or protrusions.
• MCR 2.116(C)(7): Michigan court rule allowing dismissal where a claim is barred by immunity; the court accepts complaint allegations as true unless undisputed evidence contradicts them.
• Presumption of Reasonable Repair: Under § 1402a(3), the municipality is presumed to have maintained the sidewalk adequately; plaintiff must rebut by proving a qualifying defect or dangerous condition.

Conclusion

Kenneth Mann v. City of Detroit crystallizes a pivotal doctrinal shift: objects embedded in but projecting from sidewalk pavement are legal “defects” for immunity purposes. By rooting its analysis in statutory language over analogical precedent, the Michigan Supreme Court reaffirmed textualism while simultaneously broadening pedestrian protections. Municipalities must now treat protruding remnants—sign stubs, bollard bases, abandoned posts—as actionable hazards meeting or exceeding the two-inch threshold. The case will serve as a touchstone for future litigants navigating the intersection of GTLA immunity, premises-liability defenses, and the evolving statutory landscape governing public infrastructure safety.