COA affirms dismissal of premises liability matter.

Byline: BridgeTower Media Newswires

By Correy E. Stephenson

Where the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements for a premises liability claim or that the defendants breached their statutory duty, summary disposition of the lawsuit was appropriate, a panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In Rutledge v. Suffolk Court Apartments (MiLW 08-101619, 8 pages), the panel agreed with the trial court that all of the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed and that no amount of discovery could change that conclusion.

The unpublished per curiam opinion was issued by Judges Stephen L. Borrello, Kirsten Frank Kelly and Deborah A. Servitto.

Background

Thirteen-year-old Amarionette J. Rutledge was hit by a car and injured while walking across Pierson Road to his and his mother's apartment at Suffolk Court Apartments.

Rutledge was crossing the road to enter the apartment complex's driveway, but there was no sidewalk or pedestrian crossing signal where he crossed.

He was struck while in the turn lane of the five-lane Pierson Road.

Legal action

Rutledge sued Suffolk Court Apartments and several unidentified apartment complex employees, alleging they were liable under theories of "premise negligence," violation of statutory duties, nuisance and ordinary negligence.

The Suffolk defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that Rutledge's complaint was a thinly veiled premises liability action that failed because the accident occurred off the premises at issue, where the Suffolk defendants had no possession or control.

Granting the motion, the Genesee Circuit Court ruled that the Suffolk defendants owed Rutledge no cognizable duty.

The plaintiff appealed.

Analysis

Rutledge asserted that the trial court did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to him and that summary disposition was premature because discovery was not complete in the dispute.

The COA was not persuaded.

"We agree with the trial court that no amount of discovery could change that defendants owed no duty to plaintiff, and plaintiff has provided no independent evidence that a factual dispute exists," the COA wrote. "We also find that the trial court properly viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff in rendering its decision."

Turning to the merits of the appeal, Rutledge told the COA that the trial court improperly restated his claim, as he plead just ordinary negligence, not premises liability.

But courts are not bound by the labels that...