Premises Liability: Constructive Notice Sufficiently Overcomes Summary Disposition
The Michigan Court of Appeals issued an instructive decision regarding what constitutes sufficient constructive notice to avoid summary disposition in a premises liability case. In this case, the Plaintiff had been renting a house from the Defendant since April 2019. Throughout the tenancy, Plaintiff reported various issues in and around the house that required repairs. Defendant made the requested repairs during that time, though Plaintiff testified those repairs were not always made promptly.
In January 2023, Plaintiff exited her front porch and suffered serious injuries when the bottom step collapsed as she was descending the stairs. Plaintiff sued, alleging that the Defendant had a duty to keep the property free of, inspect for, and warn about the dangerous condition.
Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, arguing that it did not have notice of the defective step prior to Plaintiff’s fall. The trial court granted the Motion, holding that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof on the issue of actual or constructive notice on the part of the landlord. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the landlord had constructive notice.
Plaintiff had testified that two years prior to the incident she informed her landlord that the front porch needed to be treated or replaced because it was drying out. The trial court relied upon documents detailing biannual inspections performed by the city and a survey report from the Defendant’s insurer. However, the Court of Appeals ultimately held Plaintiff’s testimony created a question of fact as to whether the Defendant had notice of the defective condition. As a result, the Motion for Summary Disposition was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
With the recent changes to Michigan’s “open and obvious” premises liability laws, notice has become a central defense against premises liability claims. It is increasingly important for premises owners and possessors to routinely inspect their property for dangerous conditions and keep records of those inspections. A premises owner who invites a person onto property for business purposes owes the “business invitee” the duty of “reasonable care” including the duty to cure all none or readily discoverable defects.
Read entire case at:
Mancill v. Trio Investment Properties LLC (unpublished)
About Alexander & Angelas, P.C.
Attorney Peter A. Angelas represents defendants in civil liability litigation across Michigan. His practice areas include insurance defense litigation, premises liability, motor carrier (trucking) defense, corporate and commercial litigation, construction defect litigation, auto negligence, insurance coverage disputes, emergency casualty response services, alternative dispute resolution, subrogation claims, workers’ compensation, employment law, and liquor liability.
Mr. Angelas practices in all state and federal courts in Michigan, including Wayne County (Detroit), Macomb County (Mount Clemens), Oakland County (Pontiac), Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor), and Genesee County (Flint).
A 24/7 Emergency Hotline is available (800-219-0007) for trucking and insurance company clients. When an accident requires an immediate response to protect evidence, members of the firm quickly launch an investigation with the assistance of well-qualified accident investigators, crash re-constructionists, mechanical engineers, civil evidence photographers, and independent adjusters positioned throughout Michigan.
