Successfully Defending Against Premises Liability Claims at Summary Disposition

On March 5, 2025, Attorney Redon Ipeku prevailed on a Motion for Summary Disposition in a slip-and-fall on ice case. Plaintiff was a tenant at Defendant’s apartment complex when, early one morning, Plaintiff slipped and fell on an alleged ice patch while walking towards her parked car.

In their motion and supporting brief, Attorneys David Bowen and Redon Ipeku asserted Plaintiff failed to present even a modicum of testimonial or documentary evidence showing Defendant had any actual or constructive notice of the alleged ice on the parking lot and that Defendant knew of any alleged unsafe condition. 

When taken into account the depositions of the involved parties, it became undisputed that Plaintiff could not prove Defendant had constructive knowledge of the alleged condition where the fall occurred.  Plaintiff could not prove that any condition or defect existed for a sufficient length of time such that Defendant should have had knowledge of it; there were no previous slip-and-falls nor problems associated with ice patches in the area where Plaintiff fell.

During oral argument, the Circuit Court granted Defendant’s Motion in its entirety by finding, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed to prove Defendant had any notice of the alleged ice patch at the time of Plaintiff’s fall. This is an important ruling in this premise liability case because, despite the open-and-obvious doctrine having shifted in the pertinent analysis, whether Defendant had any notice of the alleged dangerous condition remains the premier factor to determine whether a premises possessor owes a duty to invitees.

For more information on the recent changes in Michigan premises liability law, please get in touch with Redon Ipeku or another member of the BRM insurance defense team.