Premises liability; Special relationship between landlords & tenants giving rise to a duty of care; Duty owed to an invitee; Open & obvious danger; “Special aspects”; Hoffner v Lanctoe; Lessor’s duty under MCL 554.139; Intended use of a front porch

The court held that while defendant-Metro Detroit Property Management was plaintiff-tenant’s landlord, her premises liability claim should have been dismissed because the alleged hazard was open and obvious. But it was properly denied summary disposition of her claim under MCL 554.139(1)(a). Plaintiff “fell off the right side of the front porch while attempting to enter” the home, which was managed by Property Management and owned by the other defendant. The porch had a handrail on the left side, but none on the right side. The trial court denied Property Management summary disposition. On appeal, the court rejected Property Management’s argument “that it did not owe a common-law duty to plaintiff because it did not own, possess, or control the” property. The lease clearly stated that it “was the ‘landlord’ with respect to the property at issue and plaintiff was the ‘tenant.’ And throughout the leasing documents, Property Management repeatedly referred to itself as the ‘landlord’ to whom plaintiff was to pay rent.” It also reserved various rights as the landlord. But the court agreed that her premises liability claim should have been dismissed because “the danger posed by the front porch entryway was open and obvious as a matter of law and plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether there were special aspects that made it unreasonably dangerous.” As to her statutory claim, Property Management’s argument that it owed her no duties under MCL 554.139 because it was not her landlord again failed – “the only parties to the lease agreement were plaintiff and Property Management; therefore, Property Management owed plaintiff duties under” the statute. And in light of “the totality of the circumstances in this case, and the aggregate of factors,” the court agreed with the trial court “there could be a reasonable difference of opinion regarding whether the front porch entryway was fit for its intended use as a reasonable means of ingress to and egress from the home. And because the open and obvious doctrine does not apply to a defendant’s statutory duty to ensure that the leased premises were fit for their intended use, . . . Property Management may be liable even if the dangerous condition of the front porch entrance to the home was known or obvious to plaintiff.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.