Detroit Resident's Defect Notice Deemed Insufficient

Court rules plaintiff's description of location did not meet statutory requirements

Published on Mar. 2, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that a Detroit resident's notice of a highway defect that caused her to fall in the city's Eastern Market was legally insufficient under state law. The court found that the plaintiff's description of the location as "at Alfred Street near Shed 5" was too broad to constitute the "exact location" required by the statute, and the notice also lacked other details that could have helped the city identify the specific defect.

Why it matters

This case highlights the strict requirements for providing notice of a highway defect under Michigan law, which is intended to give municipalities the opportunity to promptly investigate and repair any issues. The court's ruling sets an important precedent around the level of detail needed in such notices, which could impact future claims against cities and other local governments.

The details

The plaintiff, Nancy Dentamaro Seguna, fell and was injured while walking across Alfred Street near Shed 5 in Detroit's Eastern Market on June 11, 2022. She subsequently sent written notice to the city describing the location as "at Alfred Street near Shed 5" and the defect as "uneven cement/roadway." However, the court found that this description was too broad, as the portion of Alfred Street near Shed 5 spans several hundred feet. The notice also lacked any other details, such as the specific side of the road or nearby landmarks, that could have helped the city pinpoint the exact location of the alleged defect.

  • The incident occurred on June 11, 2022.
  • The plaintiff sent written notice to the city in about August or September 2022.

The players

Nancy Dentamaro Seguna

The plaintiff who fell and was injured while walking in Detroit's Eastern Market.

City of Detroit

The defendant municipality that the plaintiff filed a claim against for the highway defect.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This relatively substantial range is insufficiently narrow to constitute 'the exact location' for the purposes of MCL 691.1404(1).”

— The Court (Michigan Lawyers Weekly)

“The notice merely described the alleged defect as 'uneven cement/roadway' without any accompanying photographs or other details. Thus, it is unclear from the notice whether the alleged defect was a pothole, an inclined part of the highway, a bump or gap, a divot, or any other non-parallel aspect of the highway that might fairly be considered 'uneven.'”

— The Court (Michigan Lawyers Weekly)

What’s next

The case has been remanded to the trial court for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of the City of Detroit.

The takeaway

This ruling underscores the importance of providing precise and detailed notices of highway defects to municipalities in Michigan, in order to satisfy the statutory requirements and preserve potential claims against local governments.