Premises liability; Breach of duties to keep the apartment property safe for the tenants; Causation; Whether the assailant gained access to the basement through the door because of a faulty locking mechanism

The court concluded that plaintiff’s “theory that her assailant gained access to the basement through the north door because of the faulty locking mechanism ‘is, at best, just as possible as another theory,’ and is otherwise conjecture insufficient to establish a question of fact.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant-Lukeman Property Management. The case stemmed “from an incident in which plaintiff was assaulted by an unknown assailant” while leaving the laundry room in the basement of her apartment building, which was managed by Lukeman. Plaintiff argued that “she presented sufficient evidence from which a factfinder could reasonably infer that the defective locking mechanism on the north door caused her injuries.” The court held that she “presented evidence that sets forth an explanation consistent with known facts—but not deducible from them as a reasonable inference—for how her assailant gained access to the building, leading to her assault.” Relatedly, her evidence failed “to exclude, with a fair amount of certainty, other reasonable explanations for how her assailant gained access to the basement.”