David Alley v. Charter Township of Mundy ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                         STATE OF MICHIGAN
    COURT OF APPEALS
    DAVID ALLEY, JULIE ALLEY, ERIC          UNPUBLISHED
    BACKLUND, PAM BACKLUND, ANTONIO         November 15, 2018
    FERREIRA, ELIZABETH FERREIRA, JOYCE
    JACK-HUGHES, PREMBAI KERAI, JOHN
    KOLTON, KATHLEEN KOLTON, ANTHONY
    MAHLER, RANDY MILLER, and ROCHEL
    MILLER,
    Plaintiffs,
    and
    RACHEL GEER, ROXANNE HUGHES,
    SWARTZ FUNERAL HOME, INC, RICK
    LAMB, MICHAEL LIZOTTE, ELIZABETH
    LIZOTTE, GRAFTON MOORE, DIANE
    MOORE, GAROLD PARSONS, SUSAN
    PARSONS, ROBERT TATE, FRANK WEAVER,
    CONNIE WEAVER, HONEY BEAR CHILD
    CARE, MARGARET WITTBRODT, and SCOTT
    WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,
    v                                       No. 341501
    Genesee Circuit Court
    CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MUNDY,              LC No. 15-104736-NZ
    Defendant-Appellant,
    and
    GENESEE COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER,
    GENESEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
    PARKS AND RECREATION, and CITY OF
    FLINT,
    Defendants.
    -1-
    DAVID ALLEY, JULIE ALLEY, ERIC
    BACKLUND, PAM BACKLUND, ANTONIO
    FERREIRA, ELIZABETH FERREIRA, JOYCE
    JACK-HUGHES, PREMBAI KERAI, JOHN
    KOLTON, KATHLEEN KOLTON, ANTHONY
    MAHLER, RANDY MILLER, and ROCHEL
    MILLER,
    Plaintiffs,
    and
    RACHEL GEER, ROXANNE HUGHES,
    SWARTZ FUNERAL HOME, INC, RICK
    LAMB, MICHAEL LIZOTTE, ELIZABETH
    LIZOTTE, GRAFTON MOORE, DIANE
    MOORE, GAROLD PARSONS, SUSAN
    PARSONS, ROBERT TATE, FRANK WEAVER,
    CONNIE WEAVER, HONEY BEAR CHILD
    CARE, MARGARET WITTBRODT, and SCOTT
    WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,
    v                                       No. 341510
    Genesee Circuit Court
    CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MUNDY, GENESEE      LC No. 15-104736-NZ
    COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND
    RECREATION, and CITY OF FLINT,
    Defendants,
    and
    GENESEE COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    DAVID ALLEY, JULIE ALLEY, ERIC
    BACKLUND, PAM BACKLUND, ANTONIO
    FERREIRA, ELIZABETH FERREIRA, JOYCE
    -2-
    JACK-HUGHES, PREMBAI KERAI, JOHN
    KOLTON, KATHLEEN KOLTON, ANTHONY
    MAHLER, RANDY MILLER, and ROCHEL
    MILLER,
    Plaintiffs,
    and
    RACHEL GEER, ROXANNE HUGHES,
    SWARTZ FUNERAL HOME, INC, RICK
    LAMB, MICHAEL LIZOTTE, ELIZABETH
    LIZOTTE, GRAFTON MOORE, DIANE
    MOORE, GAROLD PARSONS, SUSAN
    PARSONS, ROBERT TATE, FRANK WEAVER,
    CONNIE WEAVER, HONEY BEAR CHILD
    CARE, MARGARET WITTBRODT, and SCOTT
    WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,
    v                                                                     Nos. 341763; 341764
    Genesee Circuit Court
    CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MUNDY, GENESEE                                    LC No. 15-104736-NZ
    COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER, and
    GENESEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
    PARKS AND RECREATION,
    Defendants,
    and
    CITY OF FLINT,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and SWARTZLE, JJ.
    RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (concurring).
    I respectfully concur with the majority in all respects other than its holding that plaintiffs
    failed to provide evidence that there was a defect in the sewage disposal system. Plaintiffs
    provided evidence tending to show that the sewer system should have been capable of handling
    the amount of rainfall brought by the storm. The fact that the sewer system failed to perform
    -3-
    according to its intended design is direct evidence of a fault, shortcoming, or imperfection in that
    system. Willett v Charter Twp of Waterford, 
    271 Mich. App. 38
    , 51; 718 NW2d 386 (2006).
    Plaintiffs have therefore established a genuine question of material fact whether “[t]he sewage
    disposal system had a defect.” MCL 691.1417(3)(b).
    However, establishing the existence of a defect does not, by itself, necessarily establish
    the nature or location of that defect. As the majority explains, plaintiffs must also show that a
    defendant governmental entity knew or should have known about the defect, MCL
    691.1417(3)(c), and had the authority to rectify that defect but failed to do so, MCL
    691.1417(3)(d). I agree with the majority that plaintiffs have provided little more than
    speculation whether they can ever provide evidence of either element. I am constrained to
    conclude that, other than the bare fact of whether a defect was present, the majority otherwise
    arrives at the correct result on the basis of correct reasoning. Therefore, I concur.
    /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 341510

Filed Date: 11/15/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021