Background
Thomas Williams leased a lot in a manufactured-housing community owned by Creekside Huron Shores, LLC. A walkway from his home met a community sidewalk in a “T” formation, and Williams claimed that the sidewalk had sunk below the walkway, creating a height difference of approximately one to two inches. After using the area without incident for about 15 months, Williams tripped there three times between June 21 and July 21, 2023.
Williams sued Huron Shores and its maintenance contractor, Creekside Communities, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and violations of MCL 554.139 and MCL 125.536. Williams did not respond to defendants’ summary-disposition motion because he mistakenly believed the hearing had been adjourned. The circuit court dismissed all claims with prejudice, relying partly on his failure to respond and reasoning that a private landowner should not face a stricter sidewalk standard than a municipality. It later denied reconsideration.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Williams’s claim under MCL 554.139(1)(a). Although the sidewalk was a common area, the height difference did not make it unfit for its intended purposes of walking and providing access to Williams’s lot. The court emphasized that Williams had used the sidewalk without incident for approximately 15 months and that the statute does not require a landlord to maintain common areas in ideal condition.
The court reversed dismissal of the common-law negligence claims. Williams’s testimony and photographs created a factual dispute over whether the height difference was approximately two inches rather than no more than 1.4 inches as defendants’ expert maintained. More fundamentally, MCL 691.1402a’s rebuttable presumption concerning municipal sidewalks did not entitle these private defendants to judgment as a matter of law.
The court also held that Williams’s failure to oppose the motion did not automatically require judgment for defendants; under MCR 2.116(G)(4), judgment remains proper only when the movants establish entitlement to it. Creekside Communities likewise could not obtain dismissal through premises-liability principles because Williams alleged negligent performance of its maintenance contract, not premises liability, and defendants had offered no defense directed to that theory. The court reversed the summary-disposition and reconsideration orders as to the common-law claims and remanded without retaining jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- An unopposed summary-disposition motion is not automatically successful; the moving party must still establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
- The statutory rule governing vertical discontinuities in municipal sidewalks does not supply a dispositive liability standard for private landowners.
- A maintenance contractor that lacks possession and control of property may still face a negligence claim based on its performance of contractual maintenance duties.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a residential lessor’s statutory duty to keep common areas fit for their intended use from potentially broader common-law duties. A sidewalk may remain statutorily fit for walking even though its condition presents a factual question under common-law negligence principles.
The opinion also cautions courts against granting an unopposed dispositive motion without independently assessing the movant’s evidence and legal theories. It further underscores that premises-liability defenses do not necessarily resolve a separate negligent-performance claim against a maintenance contractor.