Background
Abbey Postlewait was riding her bicycle on a public sidewalk adjoining Storage Group LLC’s property when she attempted to turn at a corner where the sidewalk narrowed substantially. Her handlebars clipped the company’s chain-link fence, causing her to fall and sustain injuries requiring medical treatment. Storage Group had purchased the property in 2006 and had never modified the fence, which the previous owners had installed.
Postlewait sued Storage Group for premises liability, alleging that it negligently maintained the fence in a manner that made the sidewalk unreasonably and unlawfully narrow. Her consultant attributed the allegedly improper narrowing to sidewalk and curb-cut work performed in 2020 by the Village of Fruitport and the Michigan Department of Transportation. Postlewait also argued that political signs covering the fence created a blind corner. The circuit court granted Storage Group summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), concluding that the company owed her no duty.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that premises-liability principles did not apply because Storage Group did not own or possess the public sidewalk. An owner of land adjoining a public way ordinarily has no duty concerning the way’s condition unless a statute imposes one, the owner physically intrudes into the public area, or the owner acts to create or increase a hazard. Storage Group’s fence did not encroach on the sidewalk, and the company had not altered it after buying the property.
The court further concluded that Storage Group did not create or increase the alleged sidewalk hazard. The fence remained in the same location before and after public authorities rebuilt the sidewalk, and Postlewait’s own consultant attributed the narrowing to that public work. Even assuming that covering the fence with political signs breached a duty or violated a local ordinance, no evidence showed that the signs caused or contributed to the crash; any claim that Postlewait would have avoided the accident with a clearer view was speculative.
Key Takeaways
- Premises liability did not govern an injury occurring on a public sidewalk that the defendant neither owned nor possessed.
- An abutting landowner generally is not liable for a public way’s condition unless the owner physically intrudes upon it or creates or increases the hazard.
- An ordinance violation is only evidence of negligence and does not create an actionable claim when the defendant owes no duty.
- A possible breach involving sight-obstructing fence signs could not defeat summary disposition without evidence connecting the obstruction to the plaintiff’s injuries.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the limits of an abutting property owner’s responsibility for hazards on public sidewalks. A plaintiff cannot impose premises-liability duties on a neighboring landowner merely because the landowner’s fence borders the location of an accident.
It also illustrates that evidence of a code or ordinance violation does not replace the separate requirements of duty and causation. Even where a fence treatment may obstruct visibility, a negligence claim requires nonspeculative evidence that the obstruction contributed to the injury.