Sidewalk Step-Off, the Two-Inch Rule, and the 120-Day Notice

The GTLA highway exception, MCL 691.1402, requires a governmental agency with jurisdiction over a highway to keep it in reasonable repair. 'Highway' includes sidewalks. The first hurdle is the two-inch rule: Michigan courts have held that a vertical discontinuity of two inches or less in a sidewalk is not actionable as a matter of law. Marcus measured 2.25 inches, so the rule does not automatically bar him. The city may attack the measurement and argue that the average displacement is under two inches. The crack and crumbling edge are not the same as a vertical step-off; if the fall was caused by the step-off, the two-inch rule is the key. If the fall was caused by the crumbling edge or a combination, the plaintiff should develop that causation theory. The 2022 work order supports constructive notice and breach. The city's duty is not absolute; it must have had a reasonable opportunity to repair. The prior work order, if authentic, is strong evidence that the city knew of the defect and failed to act. The claim should survive the two-inch rule if the measurement holds and causation is tied to the step-off; the notice issue is the bigger risk.

MCL 691.1404 requires notice within 120 days after the injury. The notice must be served on the legislative body or the clerk of the governmental agency and must include the claimant's name and address, the injury, the location of the defect, and a statement of the claim. Marcus's letter was timely: May 12 to July 1 is 50 days, and it contained most of the required information. The defects are service on the risk manager rather than the clerk and the omission of the precise description and damages amount. Michigan courts allow substantial compliance if the agency is not prejudiced. The city received the letter, and its risk manager handles claims, so prejudice is unlikely. The letter identified the location by address and described the step-off; that is probably enough to allow the city to investigate. The missing damages amount is not fatal because the statute does not require a specific sum. The strongest argument for the city is that the statute names the clerk or legislative body, but a risk manager may be an authorized agent. The court should likely find substantial compliance; if not, Marcus may seek leave to amend the notice, but amendment after 120 days may not cure a jurisdictional defect. The safer strategy is to serve a corrected notice immediately and argue substantial compliance.

If the notice is defective, the claim may be dismissed despite the timely complaint. The GTLA notice is a condition precedent, and Michigan courts have treated it strictly. The statute of limitations for the personal-injury claim is three years under MCL 600.5805, so the January 10, 2025 complaint is within the limitations period. The problem is the 120-day notice. Marcus cannot use the complaint to cure a missing notice if the 120 days have expired. He can argue substantial compliance, waiver, or estoppel if the city had actual notice and investigated. He can also request leave to amend the complaint, but amendment does not create a new notice. If the city's risk manager forwarded the letter to the clerk, that fact supports substantial compliance. The court should focus on whether the city was prejudiced in investigating the defect. Because the city had a 2022 work order for the same location, prejudice is minimal. The best procedural move is to file a motion to amend or a response with affidavits from the risk manager and the clerk, and to serve a new notice immediately in case the court finds the first one defective. The two-inch rule is a separate merits issue.