Background
Jan Bowerman, a 75-year-old resident of Stanton Park Apartments, fractured her ankle after stepping into a shallow trench near the complex’s trash-disposal area before sunrise. The complex housed elderly and disabled tenants. Red Oak Management Co., Inc., managed the property and hired Westveld Services, LLC, to replace concrete beneath a dumpster. Westveld created the approximately 10-foot-long, four-inch-deep trench, which evidence indicated remained uncovered and unmarked after Westveld left the site.
Bowerman sued Red Oak for violating the statutory covenant under MCL 554.139(1)(a) to keep residential common areas fit for their intended use and sued Westveld for ordinary negligence. The trial court granted both defendants summary disposition, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed. Bowerman did not challenge the separate dismissal of Bob’s Asphalt & Paving, Inc.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. 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 its work. A jury could find that Westveld breached its common-law duty not to unreasonably endanger others by creating the trench and leaving it uncovered and unmarked. Bowerman’s knowledge and conduct concerned comparative fault and did not establish Westveld’s reasonable care as a matter of law.
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 particular lease circumstances and intended uses, including that Stanton Park specifically housed elderly and disabled tenants. Evidence that the trench was unmarked and difficult to see in an underlit area could permit a jury to find that the trash-disposal area was unfit for its intended use. The Court rejected treating the “mere inconvenience” concept as dispositive and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A contractor’s alleged failure to use reasonable care while performing work may support an ordinary-negligence claim even when the resulting hazard is a condition on land the contractor no longer controls.
- A plaintiff’s awareness of a hazard ordinarily bears on comparative fault, not whether the defendant exercised reasonable care as a matter of law.
- Under MCL 554.139(1)(a), the fitness of a residential common area depends on the use intended by the parties and may account for the particular tenant population.
Why It Matters
The decision makes clear that Michigan courts may not resolve fact-dependent questions about a contractor’s reasonable care by focusing on an injured person’s ability to avoid the hazard. Those considerations generally belong in the comparative-fault analysis.
For landlords, the ruling requires a context-specific assessment of common-area fitness rather than a categorical inquiry into whether tenants retained some means of access. A property serving elderly or disabled residents may therefore require precautions tailored to those tenants’ intended use of shared areas.