Background
Abbey Postlewait was riding her bicycle on a public sidewalk adjoining Storage Group LLC’s storage facility when she attempted to turn at a corner where the sidewalk narrowed substantially. Her handlebars struck the facility’s chain-link fence, causing her to fall and sustain injuries requiring medical treatment. Storage Group had purchased the property in 2006 and had not modified the fence, which predated a 2020 sidewalk and curb replacement undertaken by the Village of Fruitport and the Michigan Department of Transportation.
Postlewait sued Storage Group for premises liability, alleging that the fence rendered the sidewalk unreasonably and unlawfully narrow. She also argued that political signs covering the fence obstructed visibility around the corner. The Muskegon Circuit Court granted Storage Group summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), concluding that the company owed her no duty. Postlewait appealed, while leaving the dismissal of her nuisance claims unchallenged.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Because Storage Group did not own or possess the public sidewalk, premises-liability duties based on Postlewait’s status as a visitor to the land did not govern her claim. An owner of property abutting a public sidewalk ordinarily has no duty concerning the sidewalk’s condition unless a statute imposes one, the owner physically intrudes into the public way, or the owner creates or increases the hazard.
The fence did not intrude onto the sidewalk, Storage Group had not modified it, and Postlewait’s own consultant attributed the allegedly improper narrowing to the governmental entities that rebuilt the sidewalk and curb cuts. Any ordinance violation involving the fence would be only evidence of negligence and could not establish an actionable claim without an underlying duty.
The court also held that the political signs did not create a triable causation issue. Postlewait could see vehicles around the corner, and no evidence showed that the partial obstruction caused or contributed to her handlebars striking the fence. Counsel’s suggestion that she might have perceived the narrowing sooner without the signs was speculative, particularly given the acknowledgment that an ordinary bicycle’s handlebars were probably wider than the sidewalk at its narrowest point.
Key Takeaways
- Premises liability did not apply because the defendant neither owned nor possessed the public sidewalk where the plaintiff was riding.
- An abutting landowner generally is not responsible for a public sidewalk hazard it did not create, increase, or physically intrude upon.
- An alleged ordinance violation does not create an actionable negligence claim when the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty.
- Speculation that fence-mounted signs might have improved the plaintiff’s view was insufficient to establish causation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the limits of an abutting landowner’s responsibility for hazards located in a public right-of-way. A plaintiff must connect the landowner to the creation or worsening of the dangerous condition rather than rely solely on the proximity of the owner’s property.
It also illustrates that even a potentially unlawful condition on private property will not support negligence liability without proof of both a legally recognized duty and a nonspeculative causal connection to the injury.