The snow is coming down in Grand Rapids! I took this photo last week from my office – ice skating has officially started.
With the winter months – comes an issue for landlords, property managers, and real estate investors…
icy sidewalks and parking lots.
These types of conditions are a primary reason why investors hold real estate in LLCs.
Two recent Michigan court cases came out where tenants sued their landlords for injuries related to slip and falls on icy sidewalks/parking lots:
Schuster v River Oaks Garden Apartments
The claims in both cases had to do with a Landlord’s statutory duty under Michigan Compiled Laws 554.139(1)(a) to keep the Property kept fit for its intended use.
In General:
A Difference Between Commercial and Residential Leases – FREEDOM OF CONTRACT
The above mentioned duty is one created by Michigan statute. It does not apply to Landlords/Property Managers or owners of commercial real estate with commercial tenants.
In the residential context, tenants have certain statutory rights, in addition to contractual. These rights provide extra protection from a landlord’s ability to evict the tenant and are found in such places as “Landlord Tenant Relationship Act” and “Truth in Renting Act”.
One such right of a tenant – the residential property must be kept fit for its intended use and in reasonable repair. These conditions must be met in order for a landlord to otherwise evict a breaching tenant. Stated otherwise, the covenant to pay rent is not an independent covenant to a landlord’s duty to keep the property fit for its intended use and in reasonable repair.
In a commercial context the courts’ mantra is “Freedom of Contract“. The Court will look at the contract that the parties’ agreed to, and, absent extraordinary circumstances, enforce it by its term. (therefore in a commercial lease you might see language such as the following “rent is due with no right of offset, setoff, counterclaim…”) In such instance, the landlord is telling the tenant that tenant has no right to withhold rent just because landlord may have breached a duty under the lease.
The Courts have recognized that commercial landlords and tenants are “free to contract”
Going back to our Case Studies…
Two Cases of Icy Conditions – different results
Ferguson Case
Ferguson was a tenant who slipped and fell on the sidewalk outside of her apartment building. In court, she argued that defendant was “liable for her injuries because it breached its duty to maintain the common area of the apartment, i.e., the sidewalk, in a condition fit for its intended use as required under MCL 554.139(1)(a).” Id. page 1.
The Court disagreed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
MCL 554.139(1)(a) provides the following:
(1) In every lease or license of residential premises, the lessor or licensor
covenants: (a) That the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the
parties.
Courts have held that “sidewalks . . . constitute ‘common areas’ under MCL 554.139(1)(a).”).
The question the Court asked was: what is “fit” mean in this context?
“Our Supreme Court defined “fit” as “adapted or suited; appropriate,” Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP, 481 Mich 419, 429; 751 NW2d 8 (2008), quoting Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997) (quotation marks omitted), and a sidewalk’s intended purpose is for walking, Benton, 270 Mich App at 444.” Id. page 2-3
Defendant, therefore, has a duty to keep the sidewalk adapted or suited for walking.
The court reviewed the facts, as presented in the trial court and affirmed that “In this case, the sidewalk was not unfit simply because there was a patch of ice”. Id. 3
Schuster
“According to plaintiff, [Schuster,] the fall occurred as she took her first steps onto the sidewalk surrounding the complex’s mailbox kiosk. As a result of her fall, plaintiff broke her ankle requiring surgical repair with hardware placement.” Id pg 1.
The Court dismissed her claim, finding that Schuster failed to present evidence that the sidewalk was not fit for its intended use.
On appeal, Defendant does not dispute that the sidewalk was intended for walking and specifically for access to the apartment complex mailboxes. However it argues that the sidewalk, even if ice covered, was fit for its intended purpose.” Id. pg 3-4.
The Court, like in Ferguson, relied on the Michigan Supreme Court decision of Allison:
“In Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP, 481 Mich 419; 751 NW2d 8 (2008), the Supreme
Court considered a landlord’s statutory duty regarding common areas, particularly as concerns natural accumulations of snow and ice. It held that “the natural accumulation of snow and ice is subject to the lessor’s duty established in MCL 554.139(1)(a)” to keep the premises and common areas “fit for the use intended by the parties.” Id. at 438.
The Court held that the duty of the Landlord was to provide “reasonable access” to
pedestrians seeking to use it. Id. pg 4.
The Plaintiff, Schuster, claimed the sidewalk was “dangerous”.
The Court of appeals noted; “[t]here is substantial evidence that the conditions, as predicted, developed overnight and that by the time of plaintiff’s fall, they were severe.” Id page 3.
The Defendant Apartment Complex claimed that the presence of snow/ice was merely “inconvenient”.
The Court held that such “genuine dispute” of fact must be presented to a judge or jury. The Court reversed the trial court and sent it back.
Another interesting argument – Defendant claimed that it had no “notice” of the icy conditions.
The Court held that “notice” was not a prerequisite to the landlord’s duty to keep the property in good condition.
“We initially note, as we did in our previous opinion in this case, that there do not appear to be any published decisions that establish that notice of the condition is required to establish a breach of the duty under MCL 554.139(1)(a).” Id. Page 5.
Lessons:
- Whether or not the presence of ice or snow on sidewalks presents a breach of a Landlord’s duty to keep the property fit for its intended use is a “highly factual inquiry”. It depends on the facts of each case – which is what Schuster and Ferguson demonstrate.
- A Landlord likely cannot avoid its duty to keep the property fit for its intended use by claiming a “lack of notice” of the existence of an icy condition.
- If you are a commercial landlord with a commercial tenant – FREEDOM OF CONTRACT.
Questions? Comments?
e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com
Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka
Purpose Driven General Counsel 