Background
Abbey Postlewait was bicycling on a public sidewalk adjoining Storage Group LLC’s storage facility when she attempted to turn around a corner where the sidewalk narrowed substantially. Her handlebars clipped the facility’s chain-link fence, causing her to fall and suffer injuries requiring medical treatment.
Postlewait sued Storage Group for premises liability, alleging that its fence made the sidewalk unreasonably and unlawfully narrow. Her consultant attributed the sidewalk’s configuration to work performed in 2020 by the Village of Fruitport and the Michigan Department of Transportation. Storage Group had purchased its property in 2006 and had not moved or modified the preexisting fence. The circuit court granted Storage Group summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), finding that it owed Postlewait no duty.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that premises-liability principles did not impose a duty on Storage Group because Postlewait was traveling on a public sidewalk that the company neither owned nor possessed. An abutting landowner generally is not responsible for a public sidewalk’s condition unless a statute provides otherwise or the landowner physically intrudes into the public way, increases an existing hazard, or creates a new one.
The fence did not intrude onto the sidewalk, and Storage Group had not altered it. The evidence instead indicated that public entities created the alleged hazard when they rebuilt the sidewalk and curb cuts. Although Postlewait also argued that political signs attached to the fence obstructed her view, the court concluded that no evidence showed the signs caused or contributed to the crash. With no actionable duty concerning the narrowed sidewalk and no factual issue on causation from the signs, Storage Group was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Key Takeaways
- Premises liability ordinarily does not apply when the defendant neither owns nor possesses the location where the plaintiff was injured.
- An owner of land abutting a public sidewalk generally has no duty concerning the sidewalk unless the owner intrudes into the public way or creates or increases the hazard.
- An ordinance violation is not independently actionable negligence when the defendant owes the plaintiff no relevant duty.
- Speculation that an obstructed view might have affected an accident is insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute over causation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the limits of an abutting property owner’s liability for hazards on public sidewalks. A plaintiff must connect the landowner’s own conduct to the dangerous condition rather than rely solely on the proximity of the owner’s property or a claimed ordinance violation.
It also illustrates that alternative theories about visibility or signage must be supported by evidence of causation to survive summary disposition. Postlewait did not challenge the dismissal of her nuisance claims, so those claims were not before the appellate court.