Where a plaintiff stylist was injured when a light fixture fell from the ceiling of premises leased from the defendant, a grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant must be reversed because the trial court’s ruling was based solely on its erroneous conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact that defendant did not have the requisite possession and control to justify imposing a duty in premises liability regarding the hazardous condition at issue.
“In this action arising out of an injury plaintiff suffered when a light fixture fell from the ceiling and struck him on the head, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
“Plaintiff is a hairstylist who rented a booth at the Hair Art Gallery, a hairstyling salon that was located in the basement level of the Sapphire Apartments in Southfield. Rashon Gaines, Angela Malone, and Tiffany Engelman were co-owners of the salon. The salon originally leased the premises from North Park Towers, the former owner of the Sapphire Apartments. When North Park Towers sold the complex to defendant in October 2015, the lease agreement was assigned to defendant. On October 26, 2019, a light fixture in the ceiling of the salon fell and hit plaintiff on the head while he was cutting a client’s hair. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered a concussion. Plaintiff contends that water leaked into the ceiling of the premises, damaging the ceiling drywall and causing the light fixture to fall.
“The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant on the ground that defendant’s duty as the landlord did not extend to the area leased by the salon, where the injury occurred, because that area was within the exclusive control of the salon and the salon had contractually agreed in the lease to be responsible for injuries arising out of a leak. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court’s decision was legally erroneous because a landlord is liable for injuries caused by repairs to the leased premises negligently performed by the landlord if the landlord, although not legally obligated to perform the repairs, nonetheless gratuitously undertakes to make those repairs. The issue presented to this Court is thus whether the trial court was correct that defendant, as a matter of law, had no duty in this premises liability action with respect to the hazardous condition of the leaky ceiling and light fixture. Resolution of this issue depends on a determination whether defendant had the requisite possession and control for purposes of a premises liability action.
“Here, plaintiff provided evidence that before the accident at issue, the salon reported problems to defendant regarding water leaking from the ceiling and light fixture in the salon and that defendant had performed repairs on the light and leaky ceiling on two separate occasions before plaintiff’s alleged injury. On both of those previous occasions, the drywall ceiling to which the light fixture was attached became so wet that the drywall failed and caused the light fixture to fall. Furthermore, there was evidence that on both occasions, defendant or its subcontractors repaired the drywall and light fixture. However, water continued to leak through the ceiling and light fixture. Gaines testified that the leak was reported to defendant, but nothing was done to fix the leak.
“Accordingly, even if defendant did not have any legal obligation under the terms of the lease to perform such repairs, there was evidence creating a question of fact whether defendant nonetheless undertook such repairs gratuitously and thereby exercised control over the condition of the leaky ceiling and affixed light fixture that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries such that defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care in performing those repairs. ... The trial court therefore erred by finding as a matter of law that defendant did not have a duty to keep this condition in reasonable repair. The question of possession and control over property at a given time for purposes of asserting a premises liability claim ‘presents a question for the jury to decide unless there is no dispute of material fact.’
“Defendant has advanced several alternative grounds on appeal for affirming the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. However, the trial court’s ruling was based solely on its erroneous conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact that defendant did not have the requisite possession and control to justify imposing a duty in premises liability regarding the hazardous condition at issue. The trial court did not rule on any of the other issues raised by defendant on appeal, and we therefore decline to rule on these issues in the first instance.”
Epps v. NPT-313 Co.; MiLW 08-108059, 8 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Borrello, J., Swartzle, J., Young, J.; on appeal from Oakland Circuit Court; Mark Granzotto for appellant; Nathan S. Scherbarth for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0