In the past, several cases have dealt with a frequently met requirement regarding the liability of a municipality in an area where a defect is present. The law says that a written notice of the defect must be given to the municipality before the liability of an injury from the defect can be imposed.
An exception to this law was recognized by the Court of Appeals in several cases. A recent case cited this exception stating that if the municipality created the defect through negligence, then they are not protected from liability.
The Court says that these statutes were never meant to exempt a municipality of liability where negligence is present. Piling the snow instead of removing it was a “cost-saving pragmatic solution,” but presented a “foreseeable, indeed known, risk of melting and refreezing.”
In the dissenting opinion, it says that prior written notice requirements are ‘a valid exercise of legislative authority.’ These notices are supposed to prevent negligence, and therefore injury. The dissent claims the written notice requirement did apply, and the case should have been dismissed.
