Black Ice at the Apartment Parking Lot
At 6:10 a.m. on January 18, 2025, Priya, a 29-year-old tenant, left her ground-floor apartment at Maple Ridge Apartments in Ann Arbor to drive to work. The only paved route from her building to the parking lot is a 40-foot sidewalk that slopes toward a downspout. The landlord's maintenance log shows two tenant complaints about ice at that spot in the previous three weeks and a work order marked 'salt when needed.' That morning the temperature was 18 degrees Fahrenheit and the sidewalk was covered with a thin, clear glaze; Priya had walked the same path daily for two years. She wore smooth-soled fashion boots, carried a coffee cup, and was looking at her phone. She slipped, fractured her distal radius, and needed ORIF. The lease says the landlord maintains common areas. The landlord says the ice was open and obvious and that Priya could have walked through the grass or taken the rear exit, which adds four minutes. Priya says the grass was snow-covered and the rear exit was unlit.
1. Is the landlord entitled to summary disposition based on the open-and-obvious doctrine? Analyze Priya's status, the landlord's duty, and the special-aspects exceptions, especially effective unavoidability.
Read the worked answer
Priya is an invitee as to the common sidewalk. The landlord owes a duty to use reasonable care to protect invitees from dangerous conditions. The general rule is that a landowner has no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger. The black ice was likely open and obvious: it was visible, the temperature was 18 degrees, and Priya had walked the path daily. But the open-and-obvious doctrine does not end the analysis if a special aspect exists. The two special aspects are that the danger is unreasonably dangerous, such as a fall from a height, or that the danger is effectively unavoidable. The closer issue is effective unavoidability. The sidewalk is the only paved route from her building to the parking lot. If the grass was snow-covered and the rear exit was unlit, a jury could find that the alternative was not reasonable and that she was effectively forced to use the icy path. The landlord's prior complaints and 'salt when needed' work order support breach and notice. The landlord will argue that she could have taken the rear exit and that the path was obvious. The court should deny summary disposition if the unavoidability facts are disputed. If the court finds the alternatives reasonable, the claim fails on duty. The lease duty to maintain common areas does not override the open-and-obvious doctrine, but it supports the scope of duty.
2. Assume the court finds a duty. If the jury assigns Priya 35% fault for her phone use and smooth-soled boots, how does MCL 600.2959 affect her recovery? What if the jury assigns her 60% fault?
Read the worked answer
Under MCL 600.2959, Michigan uses modified comparative fault. If the jury finds Priya 35% at fault and the landlord 65%, her damages are reduced by 35%, and she recovers 65%. She is not barred because 35% is not greater than the aggregate fault of the other person. If the jury finds her 60% at fault and the landlord 40%, her recovery is barred. Her phone use and smooth-soled boots are relevant to her own negligence and to causation. The landlord may also use them to argue she failed to mitigate. However, the landlord's greater knowledge of the recurrent ice and its failure to salt are the core breach. The comparative-fault instruction should not be given on the open-and-obvious issue itself; open and obvious is a duty question, not a fault percentage. If the jury finds no duty, there is no comparative-fault analysis. If duty is found, the jury apportions fault. Economic and noneconomic damages are both subject to reduction; the noneconomic damages are not capped in an ordinary premises case. Priya should preserve claims for future medical care and lost wages.
3. The landlord argues that its prior complaints and work order are irrelevant because the ice was open and obvious. Is that correct? Explain how notice and the open-and-obvious doctrine interact in a premises case.
Read the worked answer
The landlord's argument is only partly correct. Open and obvious is a duty doctrine: if a danger is open and obvious and no special aspect exists, the landowner has no duty to warn or protect, and the notice evidence does not create a duty. But if a special aspect exists, the open-and-obvious doctrine does not bar the claim, and the landlord's actual or constructive notice becomes relevant to breach. Here, the two prior complaints and the uncompleted 'salt when needed' work order are evidence that the landlord knew the downspout area repeatedly iced and had a reasonable opportunity to correct it. They also support the argument that the condition was effectively unavoidable because the landlord knew the only paved route was hazardous. The lease's common-area maintenance clause reinforces the landlord's responsibility. The plaintiff should not rely on notice alone; she must first defeat the open-and-obvious defense by developing the unavoidability facts. If she does, the notice evidence is powerful. If she does not, the notice evidence will not save the claim.