THOMAS CRAMER V SOUTHLAND II APTSAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 95-521139 NO
SOUTHLAND II APARTMENTS and
SELIGMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Before: Young, Jr., P.J., and Kelly and Doctoroff, JJ.
KELLY, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
As a social guest of one of defendants’ tenants, defendants owed to plaintiff, with regard to the
common areas, those duties owed an invitee. Petraszewsky v Keeth (On Remand), 201 Mich App
535, 540-542; 506 NW2d 890 (1993). A premises owner is subject to liability for physical harm
caused to his or her invitees by a condition on the premises if, but only if, the premises owner (a) knows
or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an
unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize
the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to
protect them against the danger. Betrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 609; 537 NW2d 185
In my opinion, whether the condition of the sidewalk and the lawn abutting it created an
unreasonable risk of harm in light of all the facts and circumstances and, therefore, whether defendants
owed plaintiff a duty to repair the sidewalk are questions for the jury. See e.g., Rule v City of Bay
City, 387 Mich 281, 282; 195 NW2d 849 (1972), adopting Harris v City of Detroit, 367 Mich 526,
529; 117 NW2d 32 (1962) (Adams, J., dissenting) (whether a municipality is negligent in failing to
remedy height disparities of less than two inches between adjoining sections of sidewalk is a jury
question); Dora v Kroger Co, 1 Mich App 286, 289; 136 NW2d 47 (1965) (whether it was
unreasonable for the defendant to permit a ½-inch rise between the parking lot and the sidewalk is a
question for the jury).
Therefore, I would reverse the summary dismissal of plaintiff’s premises liability action.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly