Action by a tenant for a slip & fall on black ice on an apartment complex sidewalk; MCL 554.139(1)(a) & (b); Whether the sidewalk was fit for its intended use & was in reasonable repair; Premises liability; Open & obvious doctrine; “Special aspect”

The court held that the evidence indicated the patch of black ice upon which plaintiff-tenant “slipped created only an inconvenience of access to the sidewalk but did not render the sidewalk unfit for its intended purpose.” Also, the duty to repair “premises” under MCL 554.139(1)(b) did not apply to the sidewalk. Finally, because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the black ice was open or obvious, the trial court did not err by granting defendants summary disposition of her premises liability claim. She argued that “on the day she fell, defendants did not keep the sidewalk fit for its intended purpose because they failed to salt it, resulting in plaintiff falling on black ice.” The record supported “the trial court’s finding that the sidewalk was a common area under MCL 554.139(1)(a), and that the intended use of the sidewalk was to walk on it to access other areas.” Thus, defendants “had a duty to ensure that the sidewalk was fit for that intended purpose.” But the evidence did not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was fit for its intended purpose. The record indicated that “the sidewalk was not completely covered with ice, and in fact the photographs show little or no accumulation of ice or snow in the area where” she fell. She testified that “she was able to walk from the apartment exit down one sidewalk before turning down another sidewalk and that she never saw any ice or snow on the sidewalk before she fell. Defendants presented evidence that the sidewalk had been salted the morning that plaintiff fell and a photograph shows salt on the sidewalk near the area of the fall.” The court held that the trial court properly granted defendants summary disposition of plaintiff’s claim that they violated MCL 554.139(1)(a). Further, the term premises as used in MCL 554.139(1)(b) “does not include common areas, . . . and does not apply to keeping property free from snow and ice accumulation.” As to her premises liability claim, there were “significant indicia that imputed knowledge such that it is reasonable to expect that an average person in plaintiff’s position would have foreseen the danger, including plaintiff’s observation of snow on the grass, [her] substantial familiarity over 45 years with Michigan winters and black ice, [her] testimony that she walked carefully down the sidewalk that morning as a result of the icy conditions, and the apparent presence of salt in the area near where” she fell. Affirmed.