The Michigan Court of Appeals has held in a published 2-1 opinion and a separate concurring-in-part opinion that a plaintiff who slipped and fell on a step just outside her first-floor apartment cannot bring a tort claim against her landlord based on an alleged breach of duty under the provision in the Michigan Housing Law that requires landlords to abate unsafe conditions “in” dwellings.
In addition, in its 2-1 majority opinion, the Court holds that the plaintiff cannot bring a tort claim against the landlord based on an alleged breach of duty under the Michigan statute that requires residential landlords to maintain premises and common areas in a condition that is “fit for the use intended” by the parties.
The plaintiff leased a first-floor apartment from the defendant-landlord. She alleged that on an August day she slipped and fell on a wooden step that was part of an exterior, three-step stairway located just outside her apartment and that was covered in slippery algae.
The plaintiff brought, among other claims, a tort claim against the landlord based on the landlord’s alleged breach of the provision in the Michigan Housing Law that requires landlords to abate “unsafe . . . conditions . . . in any portion of the dwelling.” MCL 125.536(1). In two separate opinions, the three assigned judges of the Court of Appeals all agreed that the plaintiff’s claim under this statute had been properly dismissed by the trial court, because “[t]he statute states that it applies to areas that are ‘in any portion of the dwelling,’ ” but that here, “this stairway was not ‘in’ the dwelling,” because it was an “exterior” stairway. The three judges state: “We conclude that MCL 125.536 does not pertain to exterior stairways, such as this one.”
The plaintiff also brought a tort claim against the landlord based on the landlord’s alleged breach of the Michigan statute that requires residential landlords to maintain “the premises and all common areas [in a condition that is] fit for the use intended by the parties.” MCL 554.139(1)(a). The two-judge majority opinion explains that prior appellate case law from the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals has established that this statute “does not require perfect maintenance of a stairway” and that a “stairway need not be in an ideal condition, nor in the most accessible condition possible.” Instead, the case law establishes that a stairway “must provide tenants ‘reasonable access’ to different building levels.”
The majority opinion emphasizes that “there is no evidence plaintiff had difficulty seeing the algae. Plaintiff was familiar with the danger posed by the algae–indeed she testified she ‘took extra time’ when she used the steps. Furthermore, plaintiff said she used the stairway at least twice a day; thus, she was not impeded from accessing her apartment.” Accordingly, the majority opinion determines that “the trial court did not err when it concluded there was no genuine issue of fact whether these stairs were fit for their intended use under MCL 554.139(1)[a].”
The dissenting judge was alone in believing that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the three-step stairway was fit for its intended use under MCL 554.139(1)(a).
The plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals.
The defendant-landlord was represented in the St. Clair Circuit Court by Garan Lucow Miller trial attorneys, and in the Michigan Court of Appeals by GLM appellate attorney David M. Shafer.
The case is Kandice Holder v Anchor Bay Investments, Inc, __ Mich App __; 2024 WL 1221556 (3-21-2024).
Check out our News & Events page to see what’s happening at GLM and find out about our upcoming seminars.
Sarah Nadeau, Editor of The Garan Report Publication, is a Shareholder in our Detroit Office. Sarah can be reached at 313.446.1530 or snadeau@garanlucow.com