Background
Jan Bowerman, a 75-year-old resident of Stanton Park Apartments, fractured her ankle after stepping into a shallow trench near the apartment complex’s trash-disposal area before sunrise. The complex housed elderly and disabled tenants. Westveld Services, LLC, had created the approximately 10-foot-long, four-inch-deep trench while replacing the concrete platform beneath a dumpster. Evidence indicated that the trench remained uncovered and unmarked after Westveld completed its work, and that the parking lot was underlit.
Bowerman sued property manager Red Oak Management Co., Inc., alleging that it violated the statutory covenant to keep common areas fit for their intended use, and sued Westveld for negligently failing to correct, guard, or warn of the trench. The trial court granted summary disposition to both defendants. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the trash area remained reasonably accessible and that Westveld had not breached its duty as a matter of law. Bowerman did not appeal the judgment for Bob’s Asphalt & Paving, Inc.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded. It held that Bowerman’s claim against Westveld sounded in ordinary negligence, not premises liability, because Westveld did not possess or control the area when she fell and the claim concerned how Westveld performed and concluded its work. A jury could find that Westveld created an unreasonable risk of harm by leaving the trench uncovered and unmarked, particularly because its owner acknowledged the potential tripping hazard and testified that such conditions were typically marked with cones or caution tape.
The Court also held that a genuine factual dispute existed over whether Red Oak violated MCL 554.139(1)(a). Fitness must be evaluated under the circumstances and in light of the use intended by the parties, not resolved solely by asking whether a hazard was a “mere inconvenience.” Because Stanton Park specifically housed elderly and disabled tenants, and because evidence showed an uncovered, unmarked trench in an underlit trash-disposal area, reasonable jurors could find that the common area was not fit for its intended use.
Bowerman’s knowledge and conduct did not entitle Westveld to judgment as a matter of law. Those matters concern comparative fault and may reduce damages, but they do not establish that Westveld satisfied its own duty of care.
Key Takeaways
- A contractor’s alleged failure to use reasonable care while performing and concluding its work may support an ordinary-negligence claim even when the resulting hazard is a condition on land.
- Whether a residential common area is fit under MCL 554.139(1)(a) depends on the intended use and the particular parties to the lease, including the tenant population the property is designed to serve.
- A plaintiff’s awareness of a hazard generally bears on comparative fault rather than conclusively defeating the defendant’s alleged breach at summary disposition.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the use of summary disposition where evidence could permit jurors to find that a contractor created an unreasonable hazard or that a landlord failed to keep a common area fit for its intended users. It also clarifies that statutory fitness is a context-specific inquiry and that continued physical access to an area does not automatically establish fitness.
For housing serving elderly or disabled tenants, courts must consider those tenants when determining the intended use of common areas and whether a condition made such an area unsuitable. The ruling does not establish liability; it returns Bowerman’s claims against Red Oak and Westveld to the trial court for further proceedings.