Alvaro Aguillon v. Fernando Fernandez
331259
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 18, 2017Background
- Tenant Fernando Fernandez lived in a rented first-floor apartment with a one-inch height difference at the living-room/kitchen threshold that existed when he moved in and was known to him.
- Fernandez alleged he cut his foot on the edge of a kitchen tile, developed MRSA, underwent multiple surgeries, and ultimately lost his left foot.
- Landlord Alvaro Aguillon had delivered tiles and discussed retiling a hallway area but did not perform work at the living-room/kitchen threshold.
- Government housing inspectors had approved the unit before occupancy and the city issued a certificate of compliance.
- Fernandez sued (counterclaim) in the landlord/possession action asserting negligence, premises liability, nuisance, and statutory breach of the lease (MCL 554.139(1)(b)).
- The circuit court granted summary disposition for Aguillon on all theories of tort liability and remanded the breach-of-lease claim to district court; Fernandez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fernandez's claims are governed by premises liability or ordinary negligence | Fernandez argued his claims arise from landlord conduct (leaving tiles, failing to repair) and thus are ordinary negligence or nuisance, not premises liability | Aguillon argued the injury arose from a condition of the premises (the threshold), so claims sound in premises liability and are subject to its doctrines | Court: Claims arise from the condition of the premises; they are premises liability claims, not ordinary negligence |
| Applicability of open-and-obvious doctrine / "special aspects" exception | Fernandez argued the threshold was unreasonably dangerous and presented an unavoidable trip hazard (expert testimony) | Aguillon argued the one-inch difference was open and obvious, avoidable, and did not present ‘‘special aspects’’ creating uniquely high risk | Court: Condition was open and obvious, avoidable, and did not present special aspects; open-and-obvious doctrine bars liability |
| Statutory lease duty (MCL 554.139(1)(b)) — was the threshold a defect requiring repair? | Fernandez argued the landlord breached the implied covenant to keep premises in reasonable repair, supporting recovery | Aguillon argued the threshold was not a ‘‘defect’’ needing repair; the condition existed at lease inception and was not unreasonably dangerous | Court: One-inch rise was not a defect requiring repair under §139(1)(b); statutory claim fails because no defective/dangerous disrepair shown |
| Whether breach-of-lease claim should remain in circuit as vehicle for consequential damages from injury | Fernandez argued circuit court had jurisdiction and could award consequential (contract) damages for injury | Aguillon argued the only possible contract theory was §139(1)(b), which fails; contract damages would not cover idiosyncratic tort harms | Court: Remand to district court proper because §139 claim fails; even if contract claim existed, contract damages doctrine (Kewin) would not permit recovery for these tort-type harms |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (summary judgment standard and MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich. 512 (open-and-obvious doctrine and "special aspects" exception)
- James v. Alberts, 464 Mich. 12 (claims based on premises conditions sound in premises liability)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450 (explanation of "special aspects" and duty analysis)
- Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc., 449 Mich. 606 (steps/differing floor levels generally not actionable absent unique circumstances)
- Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich. App. 685 (injury from premises condition sounds in premises liability even if possessor created it)
- Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., 481 Mich. 419 (definition of "defect" and interpretation of statutory repair duty)
- Teufel v. Watkins, 267 Mich. App. 425 (reasonable repair construed as repair of a defect)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Thorn, 401 Mich. 306 (disrepair must create unreasonable risk that performance would have prevented)
- Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 409 Mich. 401 (contract damages limited to losses in contemplation of the parties)