Bailey v. Schaaf
494 Mich. 595
| Mich. | 2013Background
- Evergreen Regency Townhomes (Evergreen) is owned/operated by Radney; security services contracted with Hi-Tech in 2003 and again began August 28, 2006.
- On August 4, 2006, Bailey attended a barbecue in Evergreen’s common outdoor area; Laura Green informed Hi-Tech guards that Schaaf was brandishing a revolver and threatening to kill someone; guards did not respond.
- Schaaf shot Bailey twice, causing paraplegia; Bailey sued Schaaf, Evergreen, Radney, and Hi-Tech for multiple theories including premises liability and negligent security.
- Lower courts granted partial summary disposition; Court of Appeals extended a limited duty to call police from MacDonald to landlords in part, and addressed contract-related theories and agency issues.
- The Supreme Court granted leave to decide whether MacDonald’s merchant-duty framework applies to landlords and whether a landlord’s duty is limited to expediting police involvement when notified of an imminent risk to identifiable tenants or invitees.
- The Court held that a landlord’s duty is limited to reasonably expediting police involvement upon notice of a specific situation posing an imminent risk to an identifiable tenant or invitee, and remanded for related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MacDonald apply to landlords in the landlord-tenant context? | Bailey argues landlords owe the MacDonald duty. | Radney/Evergreen contend MacDonald does not govern landlords. | Yes; MacDonald framework applies to landlords. |
| Whether landlords have a duty to expedite police when given notice of an imminent risk to identifiable tenants/invitees | Bailey contends landlords must act on notice to prevent harm. | Defendants argue no broader duty beyond general precaution. | Landlords must reasonably expedite police involvement on notice. |
| Does Samson extend to landlords or remain limited to other premises scenarios? | Bailey relies on Samson to support a broader landlord duty. | Defendants view Samson as distinguishable and not directly applicable to residential landlords. | Samson is limited; macDonald/Williams framework governs landlord duty here. |
| Should vicarious liability under Al-Shimmari and related issues be reconsidered on remand? | Arguments on agency and vicarious liability should be addressed on remand. | Issues require further appellate consideration and preservation analysis. | Remanded for further consideration of vicarious liability and preservation. |
Key Cases Cited
- MacDonald v PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001) (limited duty to expedite police involvement for third-party criminal acts)
- Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc., 429 Mich 495 (1988) (merchant not insurer of invitee safety; open to crime in community)
- Samson v Saginaw Prof Bldg, Inc., 393 Mich 393 (1975) (landlord's duty to common areas where open to public (Restatement §314A(3)))
- Scott v Harper Recreation, Inc., 444 Mich 441 (1993) (merchant not required to provide security; reasons for protective measures)
- Mason v Royal Dequindre, Inc., 455 Mich 391 (1997) (merchant's duty to identifiable invitees for foreseeable third-party acts)
- Johnston v Harris, 387 Mich 569 (1972) (premises liability related to lighting/locks in common areas)