Premises liability; Duty; Whether a co-owner of a common area in a condo complex can be an invitee or licensee for purpose of a premises liability claim; Janini v London Townhouses Condo Ass’n (overruling Francescutti v Fox Chase Condo Ass’n)

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court held that the trial court erred by awarding summary disposition for defendant-condo association because it relied on the holding in Francescutti “that a co-owner of ‘the common areas of [a] condominium’ development ‘is neither a licensee nor an invitee’ as to the common areas even if the co-owner does not control the common areas.” In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant based on Francescutti. However, the Supreme Court held that the court erred by finding that “‘a condominium co-owner is neither a licensee nor an invitee and thus is precluded from bringing a premises liability claim against a condominium association simply because the condominium co-owner holds an interest in those common elements.’” It overruled Francescutti and “clarified ‘that the proper inquiry when considering the duty owed in a premises-liability context is who holds possession and control over the land where a person was injured and not merely who owned the land.’” On remand, the court found that the trial court’s summary disposition award for “defendant was in error because it relied on the holding in Francescutti that a co-owner of ‘the common areas of [a] condominium’ development ‘is neither a licensee nor an invitee’ as to the common areas even if the co-owner does not control the common areas.” The incident in this case “occurred on a common area of the condominium development when [plaintiff] allegedly pried off a cover of a standpipe, fell headfirst into the standpipe, and drowned. Although [she] was a co-owner of a condominium unit, that fact does not bar a premises-liability claim based upon her status as a licensee or an invitee.” Reversed and remanded.