Government claims, premises liability, dog bites and dram shop in Michigan

Only within the exceptions to governmental immunity. MCL 691.1407(1) makes a governmental agency immune from tort liability when it is exercising or discharging a governmental function, except as the governmental tort liability act provides. Exceptions include defective highways, negligent operation of government-owned motor vehicles, dangerous or defective public buildings, and medical care.

The starting point is immunity, so a claim has to fit a statutory exception and satisfy its conditions. MCL 691.1402 makes agencies with jurisdiction over a highway responsible for keeping it in reasonable repair, limited to the improved portion designed for vehicular travel, with sidewalks, trailways and crosswalks excluded except as provided in section 2a. MCL 691.1405 makes an agency liable for negligent operation of an agency-owned motor vehicle by an officer, agent or employee. MCL 691.1406 covers dangerous or defective conditions of public buildings. MCL 691.1407(4) says the act does not grant immunity for providing medical care or treatment to a patient, with limited exceptions for certain state hospitals. Other exceptions include the proprietary function exception in MCL 691.1413 and the sewage disposal system event provisions in MCL 691.1416 to 691.1419. Each exception has its own proof requirements and notice rules, and the claims against the state go to the Court of Claims under MCL 600.6419. Notice deadlines can be as short as 45 days for a sewage disposal system event, 120 days for highway and public building claims, and six months for claims against the state, so any claim involving a public body should be treated as time sensitive from the first call.

Authority: MCL 691.1407; MCL 691.1402; MCL 691.1405; MCL 691.1406; MCL 600.6419; MCL 691.1413; MCL 691.1419. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Within 120 days of the injury. MCL 691.1404(1) makes written notice a condition to any recovery for injuries from a defective highway. The notice must go to the governmental agency and specify the exact location and nature of the defect, the injury sustained, and the names of witnesses known at the time. If the injured person is under 18, the period is 180 days.

Subsection (2) says the notice may be served on any individual who may lawfully be served with civil process directed against the agency, either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. For the state, the notice is filed in triplicate with the clerk of the court of claims. The agency may require the claimant to appear and testify under oath. Subsection (3) sets the 180-day period for a person under 18, with the notice filed by a parent, attorney, next friend or guardian, and 180 days after the termination of a physical or mental incapacity. The duty to maintain the road extends only to the improved portion designed for vehicular travel under MCL 691.1402(1), and a municipality has no duty for a county or state highway, so identifying the right agency is part of the work. Photograph and measure the defect, and send the notice by certified mail promptly; keep the receipt, since a late notice can end the claim.

Authority: MCL 691.1404; MCL 691.1402. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Six months. Under MCL 600.6431(4), a claim against the state for personal injuries or property damage requires a signed, verified written claim or notice of intention filed with the Court of Claims clerk within 6 months after the event; the 1-year period in subsection (1) is the general rule for other claims. The Michigan Supreme Court has refused to add an actual-prejudice exception to such notice rules.

MCL 600.6431(4) is the short deadline: for a claim against the state for property damage or personal injuries, the claim or notice must be filed with the clerk of the court of claims within 6 months after the event giving rise to the claim. The one-year rule in subsection (1) is the general one for other claims. For an injury from a defective state highway, the 120-day notice under MCL 691.1404 applies, and filing it with the clerk satisfies section 6431. Subsection (2) requires the time and place the claim arose, a detailed statement of the nature of the claim and the items of damage, a designation of the department or agency involved, and a signature and verification before an officer authorized to administer oaths. Copies must be furnished to the clerk for the attorney general and each agency named. In McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730 (2012), the Court reaffirmed that courts may not engraft an actual-prejudice component onto a specific statutory notice requirement before enforcing it. That means telling the agency about the injury informally does not replace the filing. The six months should be calendared from the date of the event, and the verified notice filed early.

Authority: MCL 600.6431; McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730 (2012); MCL 691.1404. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Only in limited situations. Under MCL 691.1407(2), an employee is immune from tort liability if the employee is acting or reasonably believes he or she is acting within the scope of authority, the agency is engaged in a governmental function, and the conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury. Gross negligence means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.

The statute has three conditions for employee immunity, and losing any one of them opens the door to a claim. The gross negligence exception is the one most often litigated. Subsection (8)(a) defines gross negligence as conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results, and the conduct must be the proximate cause of the injury. Subsection (3) says the immunity provision does not alter the law of intentional torts as it existed before July 7, 1986, and subsection (4) says the act does not grant immunity for medical care or treatment to a patient, apart from specific state hospital situations. "The proximate cause" means the one most immediate, efficient and direct cause of the injury, not merely a contributing cause. Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439 (2000). Intentional torts by an employee, such as assault and battery, are judged under the common-law rule that applied before 1986 rather than the gross negligence test, Odom v Wayne County, 482 Mich 459 (2008), and federal civil rights claims are governed by federal law, not this act. The employing agency has separate immunity under subsection (1), and exceptions like the government vehicle rule in MCL 691.1405 can apply to the agency instead. The dispatch records, video and incident reports that show what the employee actually did should be preserved first, because the facts decide which immunity rule applies.

Authority: MCL 691.1407; MCL 691.1405; Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439 (2000); Odom v Wayne County, 482 Mich 459 (2008). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Under MCL 691.1406, an agency is liable for injury from a dangerous or defective condition of a public building open for public use if it had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and failed to remedy it or protect the public within a reasonable time. Notice of the injury and the defect must be served within 120 days.

The public building exception has built-in knowledge rules. The agency must have actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and, for a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge, have failed to remedy the condition or take reasonably necessary action to protect the public. Knowledge and time to repair are conclusively presumed when the defect was readily apparent to an ordinary observant person for 90 days or longer before the injury. The statute also makes notice a condition to recovery: the injured person must serve notice within 120 days after the injury on the responsible agency, specifying the exact location and nature of the defect, the injury and known witnesses, served on an individual who may be served with civil process, personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. The building must be open for use by members of the public, which can be disputed for some buildings. The defect should be photographed, how long it existed should be found out, and the notice sent quickly.

Authority: MCL 691.1406. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Not as a duty bar. In Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil (2023), the Michigan Supreme Court overruled Lugo and held that the open and obvious nature of a condition is analyzed under breach and the plaintiff's comparative fault, not duty. It also overruled the special-aspects doctrine, so a possessor who should anticipate harm despite an obvious condition is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care.

Before 2023, many cases ended on summary disposition because a hazard like snow, ice, or a cable was open and obvious and had no special aspects. Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95 (2023), changed that framework. A land possessor still owes an invitee a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect against an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land, and the licensee, invitee and trespasser categories remain. The obviousness of the danger goes to whether the possessor breached that duty and to the plaintiff's comparative fault, which are usually jury questions. That makes premises cases more fact driven. Evidence of how long the condition existed, what the possessor knew, what maintenance policies existed, lighting, photos taken soon after, and weather records are important. Deadlines still apply: the general period is 3 years under MCL 600.5805(2), and cases against public bodies need notice.

Authority: Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95 (2023); MCL 600.5805. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Possibly. After Kandil-Elsayed, knowing about an obvious hazard is considered under breach and comparative fault rather than as an automatic bar. Under MCL 600.2959, the court reduces damages by your percentage of fault, and if your fault is greater than the combined fault of the others, noneconomic damages are not awarded, although economic damages are still reduced.

The outcome turns on how fault is divided. In Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95 (2023), the Court said a land possessor who should anticipate harm despite an obvious condition is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care. The jury then compares conduct. MCL 600.2959 reduces your damages by your percentage of fault and removes noneconomic damages if your share is greater than the aggregate fault of the others, whether or not they are parties. MCL 600.2957 requires the jury to consider the fault of each person, including nonparties, so a possessor may point to a snow removal contractor or a tenant. Relevant questions are whether there was another reasonable way in, whether the owner had reason to expect people would face the hazard anyway, how long it existed, and what alternatives you had. Evidence like photographs, lighting, and prior complaints can move the percentages substantially, so it should be collected before it disappears.

Authority: Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95 (2023); MCL 600.2959; MCL 600.2957. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

MCL 287.351(1) makes a dog owner liable for damages when a dog bites a person without provocation while the person is on public property or lawfully on private property, including the owner's property. The owner is liable regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of any viciousness, so the one-bite idea does not apply to a statutory claim.

The statute creates owner liability without proof of negligence. The statute applies when a dog bites a person, the bite is without provocation, and the person is on public property or lawfully on private property. The statute applies on public property, such as a sidewalk or park, and on private property including the owner's own property if the person is there lawfully. The statute speaks of bites, so injuries without a bite, such as being knocked down, may need a different theory such as negligence. The owner is liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten. The deadline is generally three years under MCL 600.5805(2). Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies may cover dog bite liability, so identifying the owner's insurer early matters, as do photographs of the injuries, animal control reports, and rabies vaccination records. A child's claim has extra rules, including court approval of any settlement.

Authority: MCL 287.351; MCL 600.5805. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Under MCL 287.351(2), a person is lawfully on the owner's property if performing a duty imposed by Michigan or federal law or postal regulations, or if on the property as an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession. A person who gained lawful entry for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act is not covered.

Subsection (2) defines the phrase that most contested dog bite cases turn on. It includes people on the property in the performance of a duty imposed by Michigan law or federal law or postal regulations, such as a mail carrier, and people on the owner's property as an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession, which can include guests and visitors invited by a tenant rather than the owner. The statute excludes a person who gained entry for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act. Trespassers are outside the statute, though claims for other reasons are possible depending on the facts. The statute covers bites on public property without any need to show lawful entry, but still requires that the bite was unprovoked. Questions like whether a child wandered onto the property, whether a gate was open, or whether a guest stayed past an invitation come up. Witness statements, the layout of the property, and the dog's history should be gathered before deciding which claims to bring.

Authority: MCL 287.351. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

When a retail licensee unlawfully sold or furnished alcohol to a minor or a visibly intoxicated individual (MCL 436.1801(1)), and that sale is proven to be a proximate cause of the damage, injury, or death, the injured person has a right of action against the licensee under MCL 436.1801(2). The action must be filed within 2 years.

Dram shop liability is created by statute and is the exclusive remedy for money damages against a licensee for furnishing liquor. The injured person, or the spouse, child, parent or guardian, has a right of action against the person who sold or furnished the liquor and caused or contributed to the intoxication. The key proof is that the patron was visibly intoxicated when served, or was a minor, and that the sale was a proximate cause of the harm. Evidence can include receipts, surveillance video, server testimony and blood alcohol evidence. Actual damages recoverable are not less than $50 in each case where intoxication was a proximate cause. There is a rebuttable presumption that a licensee other than the one who last sold or furnished liquor did not commit an act giving rise to a claim. A licensee has a defense if it checked a Michigan license or state identification that appeared genuine and showed the minor was at least 21. Notice and pleading rules are strict and are covered separately.

Authority: MCL 436.1801. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

A plaintiff must give written notice to all defendants within 120 days after entering an attorney-client relationship to pursue a dram shop claim, or risk dismissal as to any defendant not notified, unless the facts for naming a licensee could not reasonably have been known in that time. The minor or intoxicated person must be a named defendant and remain in the case until it ends by trial or settlement.

MCL 436.1801(3) sets a 2-year filing deadline from the injury or death and the 120-day written notice rule. Failure to give written notice within the time is grounds for dismissal as to any defendants that did not receive it, unless sufficient information to determine that a retail licensee might be liable was not known and could not reasonably have been known within the 120 days. Subsection (4) says an action against a retail licensee must not be commenced unless the minor or alleged intoxicated person is a named defendant and is retained in the action until the case is concluded by trial or settlement. Under subsection (8), the intoxicated person has no claim under the section, and a person cannot recover for the loss of financial support, services, gifts, guidance, love, society or companionship of the intoxicated person. The licensee has a right to full indemnification from the visibly intoxicated person under subsection (5). Notice letters should go out immediately after signing, with proof of delivery kept.

Authority: MCL 436.1801. Reviewed Oct. 2026.