Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 691 / Act 170 of 1964
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a (2026)

Municipal corporation; maintenance of sidewalk; liability; presumption; additional defense; limitation.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE


Act 170 of 1964


691.1402a Municipal corporation; maintenance of sidewalk; liability; presumption; additional defense; limitation.

Sec. 2a.

    (1) A municipal corporation in which a sidewalk is installed adjacent to a municipal, county, or state highway shall maintain the sidewalk in reasonable repair.

    (2) A municipal corporation is not liable for breach of a duty to maintain a sidewalk unless the plaintiff proves that at least 30 days before the occurrence of the relevant injury, death, or damage, the municipal corporation knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the existence of the defect in the sidewalk.

    (3) In a civil action, a municipal corporation that has a duty to maintain a sidewalk under subsection (1) is presumed to have maintained the sidewalk in reasonable repair. This presumption may only be rebutted by evidence of facts showing that a proximate cause of the injury was 1 or both of the following:

    (a) A vertical discontinuity defect of 2 inches or more in the sidewalk.

    (b) A dangerous condition in the sidewalk itself of a particular character other than solely a vertical discontinuity.

    (4) Whether a presumption under subsection (3) has been rebutted is a question of law for the court.

    (5) In a civil action, a municipal corporation that has a duty to maintain a sidewalk under subsection (1) may assert, in addition to any other defense available to it, any defense available under the common law with respect to a premises liability claim, including, but not limited to, a defense that the condition was open and obvious.

    (6) A municipal corporation's liability under subsection (1) is limited by section 81131 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.81131.

History: Add. 1999, Act 205, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 1999 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 50, Imd. Eff. Mar. 13, 2012 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 419, Imd. Eff. Jan. 4, 2017

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 1 of Act 205 of 1999 provides:

    “Enacting section 1. Sections 1 and 2 of 1964 PA 170, MCL 691.1401 and 691.1402, as amended by this amendatory act, and section 2a, as added by this amendatory act, apply only to a cause of action arising on or after the effective date of this amendatory act.”

PopularName Notes:

Governmental Immunity Act

PopularName Notes:

2-Inch Rule
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 95 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 217× “The trial court agreed with plaintiff and thus granted plaintiff's motion to strike and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition. Defendant appealed by right, arguing that nothing in MCL 691.”
Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights, 822 N.W.2d 799 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 30× “Accordingly, the city is potentially liable under MCL 691.1402a, and the summary disposition motion was properly denied.”
Johnson-McIntosh v. City of Detroit, 701 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 27× “1402(1), the highway exception to governmental immunity, and MCL 691.1402a, which concerns a municipality's duty with regard to county highways.”
Nawrocki v. MacOmb Cnty. Road Comm'n, 615 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 10× “MCL 691.1402a; MSA 3.996(102a). Maintaining traffic control devices is a governmental function delegated to county road commissions and the state.”
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs., 860 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 6× “40 Robinson, 486 Mich at 10-11, citing MCL 691.1402a. 41 Robinson, 486 Mich at 13.”
Bernardoni v. City of Saginaw, 886 N.W.2d 109 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 3× “Robinson, 486 Mich at 19 (“MCL 691.1402a(1)(a) and MCL 691.1403 are virtually identical; they both limit a municipality’s liability to instances in which the municipality knew or should have known of the defect at least 30 days before the injury took place.”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 765 N.W.2d 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 24× “Robinson then brought a motion to strike the city’s defense to the extent it relied on the two-inch rule, arguing that MCL 691.1402a only applied to sidewalks next to county highways, not state trunk line highways like Michigan Avenue.”
Mccahan v. Brennan, 822 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 2× “In this regard, subsection (3) is best understood as a subset of the general rules articulated in subsection (1), and those general rules and requirements articulated in subsection (1)—including the bar-to-claims language—continue to apply to all claims brought against the state…”
Marchyok v. City of Ann Arbor, 679 N.W.2d 703 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “The statute begins by limiting a municipality's liability for defects on county roads. It then adds, however, that the caveat for county roads "does not prevent or limit a municipal corporation's liability if .”
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “Except as provided in [MCL 691.1402a], the duty of a governmental agency to repair and maintain highways, and the liability for that duty, extends only to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel and does not include sidewalks, trailways, crosswalks, or…”
Johnson-McIntosh v. City of Detroit, 688 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “MCL 691.1402a; MSA 3.996(102a) seeks to fill this gap, at least with respect to county highways.”
Carr v. City of Lansing, 674 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “The 1999 legislation also amended subsection 2(1) to add “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in section 2a” immediately preceding the imposition of the duty of “each governmental agency having jurisdiction over a highway” to maintain it “in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably…”
Show all 95 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(1) — 29 cases
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “The trial court agreed with plaintiff and thus granted plaintiff's motion to strike and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition. Defendant appealed by right, arguing that nothing in MCL 691.”
Nawrocki v. MacOmb Cnty. Road Comm'n, 615 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. 2000). “MCL 691.1402a; MSA 3.996(102a). Maintaining traffic control devices is a governmental function delegated to county road commissions and the state.”
Johnson-McIntosh v. City of Detroit, 701 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “1402(1), the highway exception to governmental immunity, and MCL 691.1402a, which concerns a municipality's duty with regard to county highways.”
Johnson-McIntosh v. City of Detroit, 688 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “MCL 691.1402a; MSA 3.996(102a) seeks to fill this gap, at least with respect to county highways.”
Limale Ba v. Pittsfield Charter Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(1)(a) — 6 cases
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “The trial court agreed with plaintiff and thus granted plaintiff's motion to strike and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition. Defendant appealed by right, arguing that nothing in MCL 691.”
Nawrocki v. MacOmb Cnty. Road Comm'n, 615 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. 2000). “MCL 691.1402a; MSA 3.996(102a). Maintaining traffic control devices is a governmental function delegated to county road commissions and the state.”
Bernardoni v. City of Saginaw, 886 N.W.2d 109 (Mich. 2016). “Robinson, 486 Mich at 19 (“MCL 691.1402a(1)(a) and MCL 691.1403 are virtually identical; they both limit a municipality’s liability to instances in which the municipality knew or should have known of the defect at least 30 days before the injury took place.”
Lisa Ann Jacques v. Twp. of MacOmb (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Thomas Lameau v. City of Royal Oak (Mich. 2011).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(1)(b) — 1 case
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “The trial court agreed with plaintiff and thus granted plaintiff's motion to strike and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition. Defendant appealed by right, arguing that nothing in MCL 691.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(2) — 28 cases
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “The trial court agreed with plaintiff and thus granted plaintiff's motion to strike and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition. Defendant appealed by right, arguing that nothing in MCL 691.”
Bernardoni v. City of Saginaw, 886 N.W.2d 109 (Mich. 2016). “Robinson, 486 Mich at 19 (“MCL 691.1402a(1)(a) and MCL 691.1403 are virtually identical; they both limit a municipality’s liability to instances in which the municipality knew or should have known of the defect at least 30 days before the injury took place.”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 765 N.W.2d 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Robinson then brought a motion to strike the city’s defense to the extent it relied on the two-inch rule, arguing that MCL 691.1402a only applied to sidewalks next to county highways, not state trunk line highways like Michigan Avenue.”
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs., 860 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 2014). “40 Robinson, 486 Mich at 10-11, citing MCL 691.1402a. 41 Robinson, 486 Mich at 13.”
Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights, 822 N.W.2d 799 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Accordingly, the city is potentially liable under MCL 691.1402a, and the summary disposition motion was properly denied.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(3) — 25 cases
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “The trial court agreed with plaintiff and thus granted plaintiff's motion to strike and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition. Defendant appealed by right, arguing that nothing in MCL 691.”
Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights, 822 N.W.2d 799 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Accordingly, the city is potentially liable under MCL 691.1402a, and the summary disposition motion was properly denied.”
Johnson-McIntosh v. City of Detroit, 701 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “1402(1), the highway exception to governmental immunity, and MCL 691.1402a, which concerns a municipality's duty with regard to county highways.”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 765 N.W.2d 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Robinson then brought a motion to strike the city’s defense to the extent it relied on the two-inch rule, arguing that MCL 691.1402a only applied to sidewalks next to county highways, not state trunk line highways like Michigan Avenue.”
Rhonda Schilling v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(3)(a) — 13 cases
Thomas Pengitore v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Robin Mitchell v. City of Lathrup Vill. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Donna Logan v. City of Southgate (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Susan Herrera v. Sun Troy Villa LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
O Donna Logan v. City of Southgate (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(3)(b) — 5 cases
Thomas Pengitore v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Helen Levenson v. City of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Helen Levenson v. City of Ann Arbor (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Robin Mitchell v. City of Lathrup Vill. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Donna Logan v. City of Southgate (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(4) — 6 cases
David Tremper v. Westland Colonial Vill. Apts. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Rhonda Schilling v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Donna Logan v. City of Southgate (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
O Donna Logan v. City of Southgate (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
Mary Dinan v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(5) — 30 cases
Jennifer Buhl v. City of Oak Park (Mich. 2021).
Jennifer Buhl v. City of Oak Park (Mich. 2021).
Rhonda Schilling v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Dean Eggenberger v. Twp. of West Bloomfield (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
Jennifer Buhl v. City of Oak Park (Mich. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(b) — 1 case
Lisa Ann Jacques v. Twp. of MacOmb (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(l) — 5 cases
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “The trial court agreed with plaintiff and thus granted plaintiff's motion to strike and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition. Defendant appealed by right, arguing that nothing in MCL 691.”
Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights, 822 N.W.2d 799 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Accordingly, the city is potentially liable under MCL 691.1402a, and the summary disposition motion was properly denied.”
Nawrocki v. MacOmb Cnty. Road Comm'n, 615 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. 2000). “MCL 691.1402a; MSA 3.996(102a). Maintaining traffic control devices is a governmental function delegated to county road commissions and the state.”
Johnson-McIntosh v. City of Detroit, 701 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “1402(1), the highway exception to governmental immunity, and MCL 691.1402a, which concerns a municipality's duty with regard to county highways.”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 765 N.W.2d 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Robinson then brought a motion to strike the city’s defense to the extent it relied on the two-inch rule, arguing that MCL 691.1402a only applied to sidewalks next to county highways, not state trunk line highways like Michigan Avenue.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(l)(a) — 2 cases
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “The trial court agreed with plaintiff and thus granted plaintiff's motion to strike and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition. Defendant appealed by right, arguing that nothing in MCL 691.”
Gadigian v. City of Taylor, 774 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a(l)(b) — 1 case
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “The trial court agreed with plaintiff and thus granted plaintiff's motion to strike and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition. Defendant appealed by right, arguing that nothing in MCL 691.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.