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 clipped 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 had been installed by previous owners.
Postlewait sued Storage Group for premises liability, alleging that its fence rendered the sidewalk unreasonably and unlawfully narrow. Her consultant attributed the sidewalk’s configuration to replacement work performed in 2020 by the Village of Fruitport and the Michigan Department of Transportation. The Muskegon Circuit Court granted Storage Group summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), concluding that it owed Postlewait no duty, and she appealed.
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 Storage Group neither owned nor possessed. An owner of land abutting a public way ordinarily has no duty concerning the way’s condition unless a statute provides otherwise, the owner physically intrudes into the public area, or the owner creates or increases a hazard there. Storage Group’s fence did not intrude onto the sidewalk, and the company had not altered it after acquiring the property.
The court also rejected Postlewait’s contention that political signs attached to the fence created a blind corner. Even assuming that displaying the signs breached a duty or violated a local ordinance, Postlewait presented no nonspeculative evidence that the obstructed view caused or contributed to the crash. The evidence instead showed that her bicycle’s handlebars clipped the fence where the sidewalk was narrower than typical handlebars. With no actionable duty concerning the sidewalk’s condition and no factual issue regarding causation from the signs, Storage Group was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Key Takeaways
- Premises liability did not apply because the accident occurred on a public sidewalk that the adjoining landowner did not own or possess.
- An abutting landowner ordinarily is not responsible for a public way’s condition unless it physically intrudes into the way or creates or increases the hazard.
- Speculation that fence-mounted signs might have prevented the cyclist from appreciating the narrow sidewalk was insufficient to establish causation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the limits of an adjoining property owner’s tort duty for hazards located on public sidewalks. A plaintiff must connect the owner to the hazard through ownership, possession, physical intrusion, or conduct that created or worsened the dangerous condition.
It also illustrates that an ordinance violation, standing alone, does not establish actionable negligence where the defendant owed no relevant duty, and that a plaintiff opposing summary disposition must offer evidence rather than speculation on causation.