Estate of Daniel George Trueblood v. P&G Apartments LLC
933 NW2d 732
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Tenant plaintiff slipped on a sidewalk at defendant P&G Apartments on Jan 11, 2016; alleged injuries from slipping on ice covered by a thin layer of snow.
- Weather expert (Andresen) reviewed meteorological data and photos and opined that ~3.4 inches of snow and refrozen slush created an icy surface; photos in the record supported his view.
- Defendant-owner (Borg) testified he salted the night before and again around 9 a.m. the day of the fall; several tenants disputed that salting/plowing occurred before the fall and said salting occurred only after the incident.
- Plaintiff and a tenant eyewitness testified the sidewalk was snowy and slippery; neither saw actual ice but both believed ice lay beneath the snow.
- Trial court granted defendant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the premises-liability claim but reversed dismissal of statutory claims under MCL 554.139(1)(a) and (b), and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of ice (causal condition) | Evidence (plaintiff, eyewitness, expert photos/meteorological report) shows ice beneath snow caused fall | No witness actually saw ice; only snow present, so no proof of ice | Evidence viewed favorably to plaintiff supports a fact question that ice existed and caused the fall |
| Open-and-obvious doctrine / premises liability duty | Even if ice existed, it was not open-and-obvious because ice was hidden under snow or was effectively unavoidable | Snow/ice and winter conditions are open-and-obvious; no duty absent special aspects | Ice was open-and-obvious given wintry conditions; premises-liability claim barred (no special aspects shown—other exit existed, so not effectively unavoidable) |
| MCL 554.139(1)(a) — common area fit for intended use | Sidewalk is a common area and, if coated with ice, not fit for walking; question of fact whether ice rendered it unfit | Alleged only snow/ice and a fall—insufficient under Allison to show unfitness | Sidewalk is a common area; viewing evidence favorably to plaintiff, a jury could find the sidewalk was completely covered in ice and thus unfit for its intended use (question of fact) |
| MCL 554.139(1)(b) — covenant to comply with local health & safety laws (Wyandotte ordinance) | Covenant to comply with local law is distinct from covenant to repair; ordinance required sidewalks afford safe passage — question of fact whether defendant breached by not salting | Allison bars covenant-to-repair claims for snow/ice in common areas and limits liability | Covenant to comply with local health/safety laws is distinct from repair covenant; triable issues exist whether defendant violated local ordinance and causation — summary disposition on this statutory claim was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary-disposition review)
- Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 499 Mich 491 (de novo review and evidentiary viewing standard at summary disposition)
- Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., LLP, 481 Mich 419 (interpretation of MCL 554.139 and limits on proving common-area unfitness from snow/ice)
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich 512 (landlord duty to invitees/tenants and open-and-obvious doctrine)
- Benton v. Dart Properties, Inc., 270 Mich App 437 (sidewalks as common areas and ice can render them unfit for intended use)
- Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich App 685 (snow/ice hazards generally open and obvious)
- Ragnoli v. North Oakland–North Macomb Imaging, Inc., 500 Mich 967 (winter conditions can make ice open and obvious)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (effective unavoidability / special-aspects exception)
- Rome v. Walker, 38 Mich App 458 (historical treatment distinguishing repair covenant from duty to comply with safety laws)