Kristen Stone v. Boulder Creek Apartments LLC
333355
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff slipped on ice/snow on apartment front stairs on Dec 15, 2013 and sued landlords Boulder Creek Apartments, LLC and USA Asset Fund, LLC for injuries.
- Plaintiff’s operative (once-amended) complaint alleged negligence but did not allege or cite MCL 554.139 or otherwise plead a statutory landlord duty under that statute.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition asserting the hazard was open and obvious, no special aspects existed, and there was no notice; they also pointed out the complaint lacked an MCL 554.139 claim.
- In response plaintiff conceded the hazard was open and obvious but argued the open-and-obvious doctrine did not apply because defendants had a statutory duty under MCL 554.139 and alternatively that the hazard was effectively unavoidable (a special aspect).
- Trial court granted summary disposition, finding the danger open and obvious, no special aspects, and that plaintiff failed to plead a statutory violation; plaintiff moved for reconsideration and sought leave to amend to add an MCL 554.139 claim, which the court denied without an express amendment-analysis.
- Court of Appeals affirmed summary dismissal but remanded for the trial court to expressly address whether leave to amend should be granted under MCR 2.116(I)(5) and MCR 2.118.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiff raise a statutory landlord-duty claim under MCL 554.139 in the complaint? | Complaint was intended to assert a statutory duty; plaintiff later relied on deposition and called pleading omission a clerical error. | Complaint did not plead or cite MCL 554.139 and thus failed to give fair notice of a statutory claim. | Held: Complaint failed to plead a statutory violation; plaintiff conceded omission in motions, so dismissal on that basis stands. |
| Was the hazard open and obvious and did any special aspect apply to avoid the doctrine? | Argued alternatively that a special aspect (effectively unavoidable hazard) existed. | Argued hazard was open and obvious and no special aspects existed; plaintiff could have used alternate route. | Held: Plaintiff does not contest on appeal the trial court’s open-and-obvious and no-special-aspect findings; those determinations stand. |
| Did trial court err in granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the merits (failure to keep premises fit)? | Claimed genuine factual dispute existed that defendants violated MCL 554.139(1)(a) (fit for intended use). | Argued dismissal appropriate because complaint did not allege the statutory duty; alternative merits arguments. | Held: Court did not rule on merits; dismissal rested on pleading deficiency (C)(8). Plaintiff did not argue pleading was sufficient on appeal, so C)(10) claim fails. |
| Should plaintiff have been given leave to amend under MCR 2.116(I)(5) / MCR 2.118? | Requested leave to amend in motion for reconsideration; argued omission was clerical and discovery showed claim. | Opposed; argued plaintiff failed to properly plead initially and offered excuses. | Held: Trial court did not expressly analyze leave-to-amend factors. Remanded for the trial court to explicitly consider and rule on whether amendment should be allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450 (2012) (open-and-obvious doctrine and special-aspects exception)
- Allison v. AEW Capital Mgt., LLP, 481 Mich. 419 (2008) (statutory landlord duty under MCL 554.139 limits open-and-obvious defense)
- Weymers v. Khera, 454 Mich. 639 (1997) (standards for leave to amend pleadings)