Tenant’s slip & fall on parking lot black ice; Premises liability; Notice; Lowrey v LMPS & LMPJ, Inc; Constructive notice; Banks v Exxon Mobil Corp; Claim under MCL 554.139; Fitness for intended use; MCL 554.139(1)(a); Allison v AEW Capital Mgmt, LLP; Estate of Trueblood v P&G Apts, LLC

Holding that plaintiff-tenant offered evidence creating a genuine issue of fact as to “whether defendants had constructive notice of the ice in the parking lot,” the court concluded the trial court erred in granting them summary disposition on his premises liability claim. But it did not err in granting them summary disposition on his statutory claim because he did not present evidence showing a genuine issue of fact as to whether they “failed to keep their parking lot fit for its intended use[.]” Plaintiff alleged that he slipped on black ice in the parking lot of defendants’ senior-living community. As to his premises liability claim, the court agreed with the trial court “that the record would not allow a finding that defendants had actual notice of the alleged dangerous condition.” However, it reached “a different conclusion” as to the second of his two theories of constructive notice, “that the alleged defect—black ice formed from melting snowbanks—'existed for a sufficient length of time and under circumstances that the defendant is deemed to have notice . . . .’” Plaintiff contended “that given several days of snowfall and fluctuating temperatures, the formation of black ice in a senior-living community parking lot was of such a type or character that defendants should be deemed to be on notice.” The court concluded he raised a genuine issue of material fact on this theory. He “presented an expert report from a meteorologist stating that the ice that he slipped on was present in the parking lot for 49 hours after two winter storms and continued freezing temperatures.” The report concluded “that black ice was present in the parking lot for two full days and that defendants should have therefore been on notice of the danger.” Given this “report and plaintiff’s testimony about the presence of snowbanks and the black ice,” the court determined there was “a question of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the ice that caused plaintiff to fall.” But it held that “defendants did not breach their statutory duty under MCL 554.139(1)(a) to keep the parking lot fit for its intended use.” Plaintiff did not testify, and no evidence showed, “that the entire parking lot was completely covered in ice, rendering it unavoidable to park or walk on hazardous terrain.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.