Slip & fall on snow-covered ice in an apartment complex parking lot; Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc

On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Kandil-Elsayed, the court held that reasonable minds could disagree as to whether defendant-apartment complex management company “took appropriate measures to reduce the hazard posed by the snow-covered ice in the” complex’s parking lot at the time of plaintiff’s fall. Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant and remanded. It concluded that under the new Kandil-Elsayed standards, there was a question of fact “as to whether defendant breached its duty to plaintiff” and additional factual development was required. The court found that under the “Supreme Court’s application of the newly outlined standards to the facts of Kandil-Elsayed, it is clear that the existence of a duty owed by defendant turns on plaintiff’s status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee on the property.” The court noted that the status of an invitee “is generally afforded to a landlord’s tenants and the tenant’s social guests, like plaintiff.” As a result, defendant’s duty here mirrored “the duty at issue in Kandil-Elsayed, i.e., ‘to take reasonable care to protect against the hazards of the nature accumulation of ice and snow on the property.’” Defendant did not present any “evidence to identify what, if any, measures were taken to clear the ice in the parking lot. Further, although defendant focuses on the fact that snow was actively falling at the time of plaintiff’s fall, it does not automatically follow that defendant fulfilled its duty to plaintiff. The owner of the snow removal company responsible for tending to the parking lot testified that fluctuations in temperature often lead to ice formation. It therefore follows that the weather conditions preceding plaintiff’s fall may have been indicative of the need for deicing measures. Alternatively, they may have suggested that it was reasonable to forgo salting at the relevant time.” The court determined that it lacked “sufficient evidence to support either theory at this time.”