|
No. 133771
| Irving Allison, |
|
Brian A. Kutinsky |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
Barbara H. Goldman |
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Oakland - Schnelz, G.) |
|
|
| AEW Capital Management, L.L.P., d/b/a Sutton |
|
|
| Place Apartments, |
|
|
Defendant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Village Green Management Company and |
|
Christine D. Oldani |
| BFMSIT, II, |
|
Edward M. Turfe |
| Defendant-Appellants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Apartment and Real Property Associations' (Property Management Association of Michigan, Detroit Metropolitan Apartment Association, Property Management Association of West Michigan, Property Management Association of Mid-Michigan, Washtenaw Area Apartment Association, Apartment Association of Michigan, Institute of Real Estate Management Michigan Chapter 5, Michigan Housing Council, Rental Property Owners Association of Kent County, and Real Estate Investors Association of Wayne County) Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Association for Justice's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
On the morning of March 13, 2003, Irving Allison slipped and fell, breaking his ankle, while walking to his apartment building’s the parking lot. It was snowing, and there was snow on the ground. Allison sued his landlord and the apartment complex’s management company, claiming that the defendants were negligent in maintaining the parking lot. Allison also alleged that the defendants violated MCL 554.139(1)(a) and (b), which require a landlord to keep “the premises and all common areas” fit for “the use intended by the parties” and to “keep the premises in reasonable repair during the term of the lease . . . .” The defendants filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that Allison’s negligence action was barred by the open and obvious doctrine. The defendants also relied on the Court of Appeals decision in Teufel v Watkins, 267 Mich App 425 (2005). Teufel established that an accumulation of snow and ice was not a defect in the premises, the defendants argued; therefore, a lessor’s duty under MCL 554.139(1)(a) and (b) did not extend to snow and ice removal. The circuit court granted the defendants’ motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals initially concluded that it was obligated by MCR 7.215(J)(1) to affirm the trial court’s ruling. MCR 7.215(J)(1) states that a “panel of the Court of Appeals must follow the rule of law established by a prior published decision of the Court of Appeals issued on or after November 1, 1990, that has not been reversed or modified by the Supreme Court, or by a special panel of the Court of Appeals as provided in this rule.” Teufel was decided in 2005, and had not been reversed or modified by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, although the Court of Appeals panel criticized Teufel, it stated that it was “constrained to rule that an individual who is injured as a result of snow and ice accumulation in the parking lot of an apartment complex may not rely on the statutory duties imposed by MCL 554.139(1)(a) and (b) to avoid application of the open and obvious doctrine.” The panel declared a conflict between its decision and Teufel. After the Court of Appeals judges voted not to convene a special conflict panel to reconsider the Teufel holding, the judges who decided this case then granted Allison’s motion for reconsideration, vacated the first opinion, and reversed the trial court in a published opinion. In this second opinion, the Court of Appeals panel held that, because Teufel’s statutory interpretation came in a footnote to the opinion, it was not a binding rule of law for purposes of MCR 7.215(J)(1). The panel held that the parking lot where Allison was injured was a common area under MCL 554.139(1)(a), and that the landlord had an obligation to maintain it and keep it free from snow and ice. The defendants appeal.
Top of Page
|
