Nadia Hadid v. Huntington Management LLC
353142
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 22, 2021Background
- Tenants Nadia and Raja Hadid sued Huntington Management after Nadia slipped and fractured her wrist on an interior apartment-complex sidewalk on March 6, 2019 while retrieving mail.
- Nadia and Raja claimed she slipped on ice covered by snow; defendant produced a weather report showing only 0.02 inches of snow from March 3–5, 2019 and no accumulation.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of MCL 554.139(1)(a), an IPMC provision, and common-law premises negligence.
- During discovery plaintiffs failed to seasonably supplement interrogatory answers identifying the subject matter of two nonparty witnesses (Randy and neighbor Kathleen); depositions and affidavits for those witnesses were taken after the discovery cutoff.
- The trial court excluded the late-disclosed depositions/affidavits and photos, granted defendant’s MCR 2.116(C)(10) motion, finding the weather report controverted plaintiff’s testimony and that any ice/snow was open and obvious and avoidable.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) exclusion of the late evidence was within the court’s discretion and (2) no genuine issue of material fact existed on the statutory or common‑law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider Randy’s and Kathleen’s depositions/affidavits | Exclusion prevented plaintiffs from opposing summary disposition; depositions were for trial prep | Plaintiffs failed to "seasonably" supplement interrogatory responses and took depositions after discovery cutoff; sanctions under MCR 2.302/2.313 justified exclusion | Court: exclusion was within discretion under the court rules; plaintiffs failed to seasonably supplement and did not obtain leave to depose after cutoff |
| Whether sidewalk was unfit under MCL 554.139(1)(a) | Raja’s testimony said entire sidewalk was covered in ice, creating a triable issue | Weather report objectively showed only trace snow and no accumulation, making complete ice cover implausible | Court: Weather report contradicted testimony; no genuine factual dispute that sidewalk was completely covered in ice |
| Premises liability — open and obvious / effectively unavoidable exception | Retrieving mail is essential; sidewalk allegedly the only route, so hazard was effectively unavoidable | Any snow/ice was open and obvious and Nadia had alternatives (drive to mailbox, wait, alternate route) | Court: hazard was open and obvious and not effectively unavoidable; plaintiff had reasonable alternatives |
| Credibility and use of objective record evidence | Weather report is unreliable or not representative of location | Weather report is objective, plaintiffs offered no valid basis to discredit it; Scott v Harris‑type exception allows crediting record over contrary testimony | Court: objective record defeated plaintiff’s version; reasonable jurors could not credit contradictory testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 490 Mich 61 (party reliance on prior court rules may bar retroactive application of new rules)
- Reitmeyer v. Schultz Equip. & Parts Co., 237 Mich App 332 (supplementation duties in discovery context)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (court may disregard testimony blatantly contradicted by objective record)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (effective‑unavoidability exception to open‑and‑obvious doctrine)
- Estate of Trueblood v. P & G Apartments, LLC, 327 Mich App 275 (application of MCL 554.139 and open‑and‑obvious analysis)
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich 177 (summary disposition standard)