Premises liability; Mouzon v. Achievable Visions; Possession & control; Morelli v. City of Madison Heights; Possessor defined; Orel v. Uni-Rak Sales Co.; A “holdover tenant” under a lease; TCG Detroit v. City of Dearborn; Possession & control defined; Derbabian v. S & C Snow Plowing, Inc.; Landlords’ & tenants’ duty of care in a commercial setting; Bailey v. Schaaf; Siegel v. Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co.; Principle that possession depends on the actual exercise of dominion & control; Kubczak v. Chemical Bank & Trust Co.; Little v. Howard Johnson Co.; Duty owed to a business invitee; Sanders v. Perfecting Church; Whether the dangerous condition caused by ice on the parking lot surface was open & obvious; Hoffner v. Lanctoe; Bialick v. Megan Mary, Inc.; Royce v. Chatwell Club Apts.; Special aspects; Lugo v. Ameritech Corp.; Lymon v. Freedland; Whether the ice was effectively unavoidable

Holding that there was no question that defendant-Sage’s Investment Group exercised dominion and control over the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell, the court concluded that it could be held liable for her injuries. While the trial court erred in determining that the icy condition was not open and obvious, the court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the condition was effectively unavoidable. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition for Sage and remanded. Defendant leased a portion of the plaza it owned to defendant-Grand Dimitre’s, plaintiff’s employer. The court concluded that even if “Dimitre’s had a duty as a holdover tenant to adhere to the terms of the original lease agreement covering the restaurant space, defendant clearly exercised possession and control of the common areas by exclusively choosing to employ” the company that did snow removal on the property and charging the plaza’s tenants, including Dimitre’s, a fee for snow removal and salting services. The facts indicated that “defendant possessed and controlled the parking lot to the degree necessary for it to potentially be held liable.” As to whether the hazard was open and obvious, the court concluded that the existence of the ice “on the surface of the parking lot was clearly open and obvious upon casual inspection based on plaintiff’s own testimony that she was able to observe that the entire parking lot was covered in a layer of ice and she recognized that such conditions posed a slip hazard, despite the fact that the parking lot was dark.” However, the court found that the evidence created “a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any part of the parking lot was in a reasonably safe condition to traverse in order to enter the restaurant and report for work.” Plaintiff testified in her deposition that “the ‘whole parking lot’ was ‘[a] sheet of white ice,’ a ‘solid block,’ and ‘a solid sheet of white.’” Her co-worker testified that “there was ‘snow, ice and water pretty much through the parking lot,’ and when asked if any part of the parking lot did not have that condition present, she responded, ‘No, it was covered[,]’ as was the sidewalk.”