Trip & fall on a staircase; Premises liability; Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs.; Benton v. Dart Props., Inc.; A landlord’s duty to invitees; Royce v. Chatwell Club Apts.; Stanley v. Town Square Coop.; Banks v. Exxon Mobil Corp.; Breach of duty; Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc.; Hearsay; MRE 801(c); Ykimoff v. Foote Mem’l Hosp.; Exception for a statement by a party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship; MRE 801(d)(2)(D); Foundation; Merrow v. Bofferding; Constructive notice; Duty to ensure that the premises are in reasonable repair & fit for their intended use; MCL 554.139; Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., LLP; Principle that under MCL 554.139(1), a landlord owes no duty to a tenant’s social guests or other nonparties to a lease agreement; Mullen v. Zerfas; Implied contract; Mallory v. City of Detroit

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition of plaintiff’s premises liability and statutory claims in favor of defendant-property management company. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she sustained when she tripped and fell on a staircase in the rental home where she was living. On appeal, the court first found that the trial court correctly determined there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant had actual or constructive notice of the defect in the staircase before plaintiff’s injury occurred. It noted that plaintiff failed to establish a foundation concerning the source of a statement she attempted to rely on. “Given that plaintiff failed to present any substantively admissible evidence to counter defendant’s evidence that it lacked actual notice, there was no genuine issue of material fact on this point.” Further, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether “the defect was of such a character or existed for a sufficient length of time such that defendant should have had knowledge of its presence.” As such, defendant did not have constructive notice. The court also found that as a matter of law, defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty under MCL 554.139. “Plaintiff does not provide any authority for her assertion that a de facto lease agreement may arise between a landlord and an individual that has not signed a lease.” Because she “failed to present any evidence of mutual assent or an exchange of consideration . . . there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of an implied contract.” Moreover, because she “was not a party to the lease and because [she] failed to present evidence that an implied contract existed, defendant did not owe [her] a duty under MCL 554.139(1).” Affirmed.