MARY TODD V RENT-A-CENTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MARY TODD,
UNPUBLISHED
January 25, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V
No. 295370
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
LC No. 2009-000150-NO
RENT-A-CENTER and MIDWEST, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: METER, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals by right an order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff fell down the steps leading to the exit of a store leased by defendant Rent-aCenter and owned by defendant Midwest, Inc. Plaintiff was a business invitee at the time. The
steps lacked a handrail. Plaintiff argues that the International Building Code, adopted by
reference in MCL 125.1504(2), requires a handrail, so defendants had a duty to provide one.
Plaintiff concludes that defendants’ violation of a statutory duty precludes operation of the “open
and obvious” doctrine, thereby not precluding a finding of negligence by defendants. The trial
court disagreed, finding that controlling case law held that a violation of an ordinance did not, by
itself, impose a legal duty. The trial court then found that the condition of the steps was open
and obvious and that it lacked any special aspects, so it granted summary disposition to
defendants.
We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for summary
disposition. Spiek v Dep’t of Transp, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). Statutory
interpretation is also a question of law that we consider de novo on appeal. Detroit v
Ambassador Bridge Co, 481 Mich 29, 35; 748 NW2d 221 (2008). “Whether a defendant owes a
plaintiff a duty of care is a question of law for the court.” Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124,
130; 631 NW2d 308 (2001).
Initially, we note that whether the condition actually was open and obvious, or whether
plaintiff’s supposed familiarity with the steps has any relevance, are not before this Court. At
issue in this appeal is only the narrow legal question of whether defendants owed plaintiff a duty
of care, even if the condition of the steps is open and obvious.
-1-
Historically, it has been “elementary law in this State that violation of a statute is
evidence of negligence per se.” Hardaway v Consolidated Paper Co, 366 Mich 190, 196; 114
NW2d 236 (1962). Indeed, violation of a duty imposed by statute is negligence per se. Douglas
v Edgewater Park Co, 369 Mich 320, 328; 119 NW2d 567 (1963). In contrast, violation of an
ordinance or an administrative rule or regulation is considered evidence of negligence, but not
negligence per se. Id.; Rotter v Detroit United R, 205 Mich 212, 231; 171 NW 514 (1919).
However, although violation of a statute is negligence per se, it does not automatically establish
liability. Holmes v Merson, 285 Mich 136, 140; 280 NW 139 (1938). It remains a question of
fact whether the violation of the statute had a causal connection to the claimed injury. Vaas v
Schrotenboer, 329 Mich 642, 650; 46 NW2d 416 (1951). Furthermore, violation of a statute
only constitutes violation of a duty to a plaintiff under limited circumstances, such as when the
statute was intended to protect a particular class of persons to which the plaintiff belonged or to
protect against the particular kind of harm that occurred. Longstreth v Gensel, 423 Mich 675,
692-693; 377 NW2d 804 (1985).
This Court has recently explained that merely violating a construction code might be
evidence of common-law negligence, but the open and obvious doctrine still applies; in contrast,
violation of a statutory duty overrides the open and obvious doctrine. Kennedy v Great Atlantic
& Pacific Tea Co, 274 Mich App 710, 720-721; 737 NW2d 179 (2007). In that case, this Court
held that the defendants’ alleged breach of a provision of the Michigan Occupational Safety and
Health Act (MIOSHA) was not a violation of a statutory duty to the plaintiff, an invitee of the
defendants, because the statutory duties at issue were owed between employers and employees.
Id. at 721. This is consistent with historical precedent.
Plaintiff asserts that defendants violated a statutory duty imposed by the Single State
Construction Code Act (SSCCA), MCL 125.1501 et seq, which adopts by reference the
International Building Code at MCL 125.1504(2). In relevant part, MCL 125.1504 also
provides:
(3) The code shall be designed to effectuate the general purposes of this
act and the following objectives and standards:
* * *
(c) To permit to the fullest extent feasible the use of modern technical
methods, devices, and improvements, including premanufactured units, consistent
with reasonable requirements for the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants
and users of buildings and structures.
* * *
(e) To insure adequate maintenance of buildings and structures throughout
this state and to adequately protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people.
The “general purposes” of the SSCCA are:
to create a construction code commission and prescribe its functions; to
authorize the director to promulgate rules with recommendations from each
affected board relating to the construction, alteration, demolition, occupancy, and
-2-
use of buildings and structures; to prescribe energy conservation standards for the
construction of certain buildings; to provide for statewide approval of
premanufactured units; to provide for the testing of new devices, materials, and
techniques for the construction of buildings and structures; to define the classes of
buildings and structures affected by the act; to provide for administration and
enforcement of the act; to create a state construction code fund; to prohibit certain
conduct; to establish penalties, remedies, and sanctions for violations of the act; to
repeal acts and parts of acts; and to provide an appropriation.
This Court has held in dicta that the purpose of the SSCCA “is not to protect the public against
harm . . . but merely to establish the authority . . . to ‘prepare and promulgate’ a state
construction code consistent with, and protective of, the ‘health, safety, and welfare of the
occupants and users of buildings and structures.’” Rakowski v Sarb, 269 Mich App 619, 628 n 4;
713 NW2d 787 (2006). This is what the trial court relied on in granting summary disposition.
We find the Rakowski Court’s reading of the SSCCA somewhat narrow. It defies sense
to conclude that “occupants and users of buildings and structures” are not among the class of
persons intended to be protected by the SSCCA, and it explicitly states that “protect[ing] the
health, safety, and welfare of the people” is an objective. Furthermore, the SSCCA provides that
it is a misdemeanor for “a person or corporation” to “[k]nowingly violate[] this act or the code or
a rule for the enforcement of this act or code.” MCL 125.1523(1)(a). We therefore disagree
with Rakowski to the extent it holds that the SSCCA is not intended, at least in part, to protect the
public against harm.
However, we are ultimately persuaded that Rakowski reached the correct conclusion.
MCL 125.1504(2) adopts a variety of codes, including the International Building Code, “with
amendments, additions, or deletions as the director determines appropriate.” Therefore, there is
no guarantee that the SSCCA actually adopts the specific provision within the International
Building Code that governs handrails. The SSCCA’s references to “the code” mean the state
construction code, in its final codified form with amendments, additions, or deletions. See MCL
125.1502a(j). Finally, the SSCCA imposes a duty to promulgate a state construction code, but it
does not comprehensively dictate all of the contents thereof. The state construction code is
therefore ultimately “issued under statutory authority” rather than being a statute itself. See
Douglas, supra, 369 Mich at 328. We cannot conclude that the SSCCA imposes a specific duty
upon defendants to install handrails.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
