What Every Michigan Residential Landlord Needs to Know About Snow and Ice
Many Michigan residential landlords are confused about their legal duties relative to snow and ice accumulations on their properties. This confusion is understandable as premises liability cases can be quite technical and the subject of frequent court rulings. Two recent Michigan court rulings have clarified the duties of Michigan residential landlords with respect to snow and ice accumulations on their properties.
But first, a little background information might be helpful. Traditionally, landowners had certain duties to people who used their property. Depending on the status of the person using the property, landowners could be held legally liable for injuries that people suffered on their property. However, in Michigan this general rule has been limited by the Open and Obvious Doctrine, which was adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2001. The Open and Obvious Doctrine essentially provides that landowners will not be held liable for injuries that are caused by hazards on their property that are “open and obvious.” Many Michigan court cases have addressed just what sort of dangers are “open and obvious” and the definition of this term has been the subject of extensive litigation. Eventually, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that, absent some sort of special circumstances, Michigan’s winter snow and ice accumulations were “open and obvious” dangers from which landowners should not have to protect their visitors.
However, until recently there was some uncertainty as to whether Michigan residential landlords could rely on the Open and Obvious Doctrine to defend against premises liability claims resulting from snowy or icy conditions. This uncertainty was due to the separate statutory duties imposed on residential landlords to keep their common areas and premises fit for their intended use and to keep their premises in reasonable repair. This question was answered to a great extent in 2008, when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that apartment complex parking lots are common areas and that a residential landlord’s statutory duty to keep apartment complex common areas and premises fit for their intended use does apply to natural accumulations of snow and ice.
However, this case was not a clear cut victory for tenants who slip and fall on ice or snow because in this very case the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the parking lot in question was fit for its intended use as a matter of law even though it was covered with one to two inches of snow. An important component of this ruling was what the Michigan Supreme Court saw as the purpose of parking lots. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the primary purpose of a parking lot is to park cars and that as long as tenants have reasonable access in and out of the parking lot, the parking lot is fit for its intended use. The Michigan Supreme Court also ruled that the statutory duties imposed on residential landlords apply only to tenants, and not to their guests or visitors.
A very recent 2010 Michigan Court of Appeals case extended the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to an apartment complex’s common outdoor stairway on which snow and black ice had accumulated. Crucial to the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision was the idea that – in contrast to parking lots – the intended use of a stairway is walking on it, and accumulated ice on the stairway can render it unfit for its intended use.
The bottom line in all of this is that Michigan residential landlords need to be aware that an accumulation of ice or snow on the common areas or premises of an apartment complex can implicate a landlord’s duty to keep the premises and common areas fit for their intended use. Care should be taken to maintain apartment complexes in line with these legal requirements, and any questions regarding a landlord’s obligations should be directed to competent legal counsel.
But first, a little background information might be helpful. Traditionally, landowners had certain duties to people who used their property. Depending on the status of the person using the property, landowners could be held legally liable for injuries that people suffered on their property. However, in Michigan this general rule has been limited by the Open and Obvious Doctrine, which was adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2001. The Open and Obvious Doctrine essentially provides that landowners will not be held liable for injuries that are caused by hazards on their property that are “open and obvious.” Many Michigan court cases have addressed just what sort of dangers are “open and obvious” and the definition of this term has been the subject of extensive litigation. Eventually, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that, absent some sort of special circumstances, Michigan’s winter snow and ice accumulations were “open and obvious” dangers from which landowners should not have to protect their visitors.
However, until recently there was some uncertainty as to whether Michigan residential landlords could rely on the Open and Obvious Doctrine to defend against premises liability claims resulting from snowy or icy conditions. This uncertainty was due to the separate statutory duties imposed on residential landlords to keep their common areas and premises fit for their intended use and to keep their premises in reasonable repair. This question was answered to a great extent in 2008, when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that apartment complex parking lots are common areas and that a residential landlord’s statutory duty to keep apartment complex common areas and premises fit for their intended use does apply to natural accumulations of snow and ice.
However, this case was not a clear cut victory for tenants who slip and fall on ice or snow because in this very case the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the parking lot in question was fit for its intended use as a matter of law even though it was covered with one to two inches of snow. An important component of this ruling was what the Michigan Supreme Court saw as the purpose of parking lots. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the primary purpose of a parking lot is to park cars and that as long as tenants have reasonable access in and out of the parking lot, the parking lot is fit for its intended use. The Michigan Supreme Court also ruled that the statutory duties imposed on residential landlords apply only to tenants, and not to their guests or visitors.
A very recent 2010 Michigan Court of Appeals case extended the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to an apartment complex’s common outdoor stairway on which snow and black ice had accumulated. Crucial to the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision was the idea that – in contrast to parking lots – the intended use of a stairway is walking on it, and accumulated ice on the stairway can render it unfit for its intended use.
The bottom line in all of this is that Michigan residential landlords need to be aware that an accumulation of ice or snow on the common areas or premises of an apartment complex can implicate a landlord’s duty to keep the premises and common areas fit for their intended use. Care should be taken to maintain apartment complexes in line with these legal requirements, and any questions regarding a landlord’s obligations should be directed to competent legal counsel.