Casey John Day v. Woko LLC, 356726

Background:

WOKO LLC owned the showroom building; Skiers Pier LLC (tenant) constructed and used a plywood-topped metal-joist mezzanine (built 2000) for storage and, per the 2013 lease, was obligated to maintain and repair the premises.
On February 15, 2018, while still an employee of Skiers Pier, plaintiff fell through the mezzanine floor while retrieving a sign and was injured.
Around mid-February 2018 the assets of Skiers Pier were sold to Tommy’s Detroit LLC; the exact timing and execution dates of the asset purchase and lease-assignment documents are disputed.
Plaintiff sued WOKO, Tommy’s, and MKB for negligence, premises liability, and nuisance; the trial court converted the claim to premises liability and granted summary disposition for defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
The trial court found Skiers Pier had exclusive possession and responsibility for maintenance at the time of the incident; neither WOKO (landlord) nor Tommy’s (possible assignee) had actual possession or control of the mezzanine.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing landlord liability (latent defects and duties to tenant employees) and that Tommy’s might have become possessor by virtue of the sale documents.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether WOKO (landlord/owner) is liable for plaintiff's injuries despite lease	WOKO liable as landlord for latent defects and may owe duty to tenant employees	WOKO lacked possession/control; Skiers Pier had exclusive maintenance responsibility under the lease	WOKO not liable—ownership alone insufficient; Skiers Pier had possession/control and maintenance duty
Whether a latent defect at lease inception (2013) makes WOKO liable	Latent defect existing when lease executed would impose landlord duty to disclose/warn	No evidence of a preexisting defect and mezzanine was built/used by Skiers Pier	No latent-defect liability shown; mezzanine built by Skiers Pier and no proof of defect at lease inception
Whether Tommy’s (asset purchaser/assignee) is liable given disputed execution dates	Tommy’s may be possessor/entitled to immediate possession and thus liable if assignment effective before injury	Tommy’s was not in actual occupation or control at time of incident; Skiers Pier still occupying and controlling premises	Tommy’s not liable—might have had entitlement on paper but lacked actual possession/control and practical ability to prevent harm
Whether nuisance-in-fact claim can proceed against WOKO or Tommy’s	Mezzanine condition constituted a nuisance capable of harming invitees/employees	Nuisance requires possession/control and interference with plaintiff’s use of his land; not met here	Nuisance claims dismissed—no possession/control by defendants and condition did not impair plaintiff's use of his own land

Key Cases Cited

Merritt v Nickelson, 407 Mich 544 (1980) (ownership is not dispositive; defines "possessor" for premises liability)
James v Alberts, 463 Mich 12 (2001) (premises liability governs injuries from conditions of the land)
Lowrey v LMPS & LMPJ, 500 Mich 1 (2016) (possessor must have notice of dangerous condition to be liable)
Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich App 685 (2012) (distinguishes premises liability from ordinary negligence)
Bluemer v Saginaw Central Oil & Gas Serv., Inc., 356 Mich 399 (1959) (landlord liability may attach for common-area defects open to the public)
Scholberg v Truman, 496 Mich 1 (2014) (nuisance liability requires possession/control by defendant)
Samson v Saginaw Professional Bldg Inc, 393 Mich 393 (1975) (landlord liable where it maintained common area that caused injury)
Calef v West, 252 Mich App 443 (2002) (landlord duty to warn tenant of latent defects at lease execution)