Wrongful death; Whether a claim sounded in premises liability or ordinary negligence; Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc; Failure to allege a party possessed & controlled the premises; Bowman v Walker; Detroit Airlines North Terminal Consortium, Inc. (DANTeC); AvAirPros Services, Inc. (APS)

Holding that plaintiff-estate’s claims against defendants sounded in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence, the court concluded two of them were entitled to summary disposition because plaintiff failed to allege that they possessed and controlled the premises in question. But it concluded plaintiff did state a premises liability claim against the other defendant. Plaintiff brought this wrongful death action against defendants-DANTeC, APS, and Schindler Elevator Corporation after the decedent (Quigley) fell while boarding an escalator at the airport and suffered a broken neck. In these consolidated appeals, defendants challenged the trial court’s orders denying their summary disposition motions. As to APS, as plaintiff alleged “Quigley’s injuries and death resulted from his encounter with a dangerous condition in the North Terminal, that is, the escalator,” the claim was one for premises liability. Recovery may only be had under this theory if “the defendant had legal possession and control of the premises. . . . In other words, if a claim sounds in premises liability, a defendant that is not an owner, possessor, or occupier of the premises cannot be held liable on that theory and is entitled to summary disposition.” Plaintiff actually “asserted in the trial court and on appeal that APS did not possess or control the premises.” Thus, APS was entitled to summary disposition. Plaintiff’s claim against Schindler was also “one of premises liability because the claim alleges that Quigley’s injury arose from a dangerous condition on the land.” And the complaint did “not allege that Schindler possessed or controlled the premises where the dangerous condition is alleged to have existed.” Thus, Schindler was likewise entitled to summary disposition. The court next held that DANTeC was entitled to summary disposition of the ordinary negligence claim because plaintiff’s claim sounded exclusively in premises liability. But it concluded plaintiff pled “the requisite allegations to support a premises liability claim, namely, that DANTeC owed Quigley a duty, that [it] breached that duty by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failing to warn the decedent of the dangers, and that the breach caused Quigley’s death and plaintiff’s damages.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for entry of an order granting defendants summary disposition of the ordinary negligence claims and for further proceedings.