Darlene Sandifer v. McKinley Inc
332443
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff, a resident of defendant Taylor Community Development's senior apartment complex, slipped on ice on a sidewalk near her building on February 12, 2011, and filed an incident report the same morning.
- Plaintiff sued defendants McKinley, Inc. (The Commons) and Taylor Community Development alleging negligence and a statutory violation of MCL 554.139 (failure to keep common areas fit for intended use).
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing the icy condition was open and obvious and avoidable, and that the sidewalk remained fit for its intended use.
- Photographs showed most of the sidewalk was clear with a relatively narrow strip of ice across a slab; defendants argued the strip could be stepped over.
- The trial court granted summary disposition, concluding MCL 554.139 did not require perfect conditions, the sidewalk was fit for walking, and the icy patch was open and avoidable; the court denied reconsideration.
- Plaintiff appealed only the statutory claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding no genuine factual dispute that the statute was not violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sidewalk violated MCL 554.139 by being unfit for its intended use (walking) | Sandifer: ice covered the sidewalk width, rendering it unfit to walk on | Defendants: ice was limited/narrow; sidewalk otherwise usable and provided reasonable access | Court: sidewalk was fit for intended use; statute not violated |
| Whether open-and-obvious/avoidable doctrine bars recovery on premises claim | Sandifer: icy condition was effectively unavoidable and not open-and-obvious | Defendants: condition was open and obvious and could be avoided (stepped over) | Court: icy patch was open and avoidable; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Standard for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Court: reviewed de novo; evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant; no factual dispute |
| Scope of landlord duty under MCL 554.139 for common areas | Sandifer: landlord must keep areas free of hazardous ice | Defendants: statute requires only that areas be fit for intended use, not ideal conditions | Court: statute requires fitness for intended use; not perfection; applied this standard to affirm dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Recca, 492 Mich 169 (de novo review of summary disposition)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (summary-judgment standard and evaluation of evidence)
- Allison v. AEW Capital Mgt, LLP, 481 Mich 419 (MCL 554.139 protects lessees; parking lots and sidewalks are common areas; intended-use standard)
- Benton v. Dart Props, Inc., 270 Mich App 437 (sidewalk covered with ice is not fit for walking; factual comparison to extent/size of ice patch)