Trip & fall on an apartment complex sidewalk; Breach of statutory duties under MCL 554.139(1)(a) & (1)(b); Whether the sidewalk was unfit for its intended use; Estate of Trueblood v P&G Apts, LLC; Jeffrey-Moise v Williamsburg Towne Houses Coop, Inc; Allison v AEW Capital Mgmt; Premises liability; Hoffner v Lanctoe; Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc; The Housing Law of Michigan (HLM); MCL 125.536(1); Applicability; MCL 125.401(2)

As to plaintiff-tenant’s claims under MCL 554.139, the court held that (1) as to subsection (1)(a), a “slight lip at a sidewalk joint” is insufficient to create a question of fact whether a sidewalk was fit for its intended use, and (2) because a sidewalk is a common area, defendant did not have a duty under subsection (1)(b). It further held that there was “no genuine issue of material fact whether” defendant-apartment complex owner breached its duty to plaintiff under a premises liability theory. Finally, her claim for violation of the HLM failed because the HLM did not apply. Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition to defendant and remanded with instructions to enter an order of summary disposition for defendant. The case arose after “plaintiff tripped and fell on an elevated sidewalk joint while walking from the parking lot to her apartment[.]” The court found that the uneven sidewalk joint here was “more akin to the patches of ice on the sidewalk in Jeffrey-Moise and the snow and ice in the parking lot of Allison than the sidewalk completely covered in ice in Estate of Trueblood.” It noted that “slight lips at sidewalks joints are exceedingly common and arguably expected. While an ideal sidewalk would be perfectly level at all its joints, that is not the condition that MCL 554.139(1)(a) requires.” While it was unclear from the complaint whether plaintiff “intended to allege a single claim sounding in premises liability or multiple claims sounding in premises liability and ordinary negligence,” the court determined that she alleged a single premises liability claim because she asserted “that she was injured by ‘a condition of the land’—the sidewalk lip.” The court concluded the record did not support her contention “that the sidewalk lip posed an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land.” Like the steps in Bertrand, there was “nothing unusual about an imperfect sidewalk joint forming a slight lip. ‘Perfection is neither practicable nor required by the law,’ and the lip in the sidewalk here was not an unusual occurrence rising to the level of a dangerous condition on the land.” Finally, defendant was correct that the HLM did not apply because the city where the complex was located “has a population less than 10,000.”