Slip & fall on pool steps; Statutory claim that the steps were not fit for their intended purpose; MCL 554.139(1)(a) & (b); Estate of Trueblood v. P & G Apts., LLC; Hadden v. McDermitt Apts., LLC; “Common area”; Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., LLP; The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) authority to regulate swimming pools under the Public Health Code (MCL 333.1101 et seq.); R 325.2134(4); Stare decisis; MCR 7.215(J)(1); Catalina Mktg. Sales Corp. v. Department of Treasury; Paige v. Sterling Heights; Nuculovic v. Hill

The court held that the trial court erred by granting defendants (mobile home community owners and operators) summary disposition of plaintiff’s statutory liability claim. Plaintiff sued defendants for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell at the swimming pool in defendants’ mobile home community. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, finding the “slippery nature of the pool was open and obvious, subject to no special aspects, and that the steps, which constituted a common area, were fit for their intended use such that no statutory violations occurred.” On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition as to her statutory claim in light of Estate of Trueblood. Defendants “cannot rely on the MDEQ inspection to support dismissal of plaintiff’s (1)(b) claim, and the trial court could only rely on plaintiff’s complaint and defendants’ answer. Contained in plaintiff’s complaint were the well-pleaded facts that defendants did not comply with one of the administration codes governing public swimming pools.” Further, “[b]ecause Trueblood is binding precedent,” the court was required “to follow the rule of law established.” Finally, in light of plaintiff’s evidence, “reasonable minds could differ on whether defendants breached their duty under MCL 554.139(1)(a) ‘to maintain [the stairs] in a manner that was fit for [their] intended use.’ If there was an unusually slippery substance that created a higher risk of slipping than normal pool stairs present, then defendants would have breached their duty to maintain the pool stairs in a manner fit for their intended use.” Reversed and remanded.