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 the sidewalk allegedly had sunk below the walkway, creating a height difference that Williams estimated at approximately one to two inches. After living there for about 15 months without incident, Williams tripped at that location three times during June and July 2023.
Williams sued Huron Shores and its maintenance contractor, Creekside Communities, LLC, asserting 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 and later denied reconsideration.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the claim under MCL 554.139(1)(a). Although the sidewalk was a common area, the evidence showed that it remained fit for its intended uses of walking and providing access to Williams’s lot. The court emphasized that the statute does not require a common area to be maintained in ideal condition and noted that Williams had used the sidewalk without incident for approximately 15 months. Williams had conceded that MCL 125.536 and MCL 554.139(1)(b) did not apply.
The court reversed dismissal of the common-law negligence claims. Williams’s testimony and photographs created a factual dispute over whether the height differential was as much as two inches, contrary to defendants’ expert’s measurement of no more than 1.4 inches. More fundamentally, the statutory presumption protecting municipalities from sidewalk claims involving discontinuities under two inches did not entitle these private defendants to judgment. Creekside also could not obtain dismissal based on premises-liability principles because Williams alleged negligent performance of its maintenance contract, not premises liability based on possession and control of the land. The court remanded those negligence claims for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A party’s failure to respond to a summary-disposition motion does not automatically require judgment for the movant; the motion and supporting evidence must still establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
- Michigan’s statutory presumption concerning municipal sidewalks and vertical discontinuities under two inches does not establish the governing standard for a private landowner.
- A maintenance contractor that lacks possession and control of property may still face an ordinary-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 the potentially broader duties implicated by common-law negligence. It also cautions trial courts against importing governmental-immunity standards into claims against private property owners and against treating an unopposed dispositive motion as automatically meritorious.