Tenant injury; Notice; Statutory claim under MCL 554.139; Allison v AEW Capital Mgmt, LLP; Premises liability; Albitus v Greektown Casino, LLC; Lowrey v LMPS & LMPJ, Inc

Holding that MCL 554.139 does not include a notice requirement, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary disposition of plaintiff-tenant’s statutory claim. But it reversed as to her premises liability claim because she failed to prove that they had notice of the defect. The case arose after plaintiff injured her ankle when a step to her back patio collapsed beneath her. She had never used the back patio before the incident and did not know about any issues with the steps. Defendants argued that they were entitled to summary disposition because she failed to prove that they had notice of the defect. The court agreed as to the premises liability claim but disagreed as to the MCL 554.139 claim. There was no indication they had actual knowledge of the danger, and plaintiff “failed to provide evidence displaying how long the dangerous condition had existed. She included photographs of other steps in the apartment complex, taken approximately 16 months after she was injured, but that evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that defendants had constructive knowledge of an unreasonable risk of harm posed by [her] patio steps at the time of the incident.” Thus, no genuine question of material fact existed as to whether they “had notice of the dangerous condition of the steps” and as a result, the trial court should have granted them summary disposition of her premises liability claim. But the fact defendants did not have notice of the defect was immaterial to her claim under MCL 554.139. Given the absence of published case law “holding that a lessor must have notice of unfit conditions to be liable under MCL 554.139,” and that the statute does not include a notice requirement, the court declined to “engage in judicial legislation by adding language to the statute and requiring notice under MCL 554.139. Indeed, grafting a constructive or actual notice requirement into MCL 554.139 is both inappropriate and unnecessary because, according to the statute’s clear and unambiguous language, defendant owed plaintiff a statutory duty at all times.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to grant defendants’ summary disposition motion as to plaintiff’s premises liability claim and for further proceedings.