What Happened in Murray v NOM Estates?
Jasmine Murray rented a single-family home in Flint, Michigan. The front porch stairs originally had handrails on both sides.
According to the Court of Appeals, one of those railings rusted and eventually fell off. Murray notified the landlord. In January 2022, she sent another message stating that the railing had been gone for more than a year and a half and asking when it would be repaired. The landlord responded that they were “working on it.” Murray also claimed that the remaining railing was rusted, loose, unstable, and leaning.
About a week later, Murray left the home early in the morning to go to work. She fell while stepping onto the porch.
Murray could not identify exactly what caused her to slip. But she testified that as she was falling, she tried to grab the handrail that was no longer there. She fell into the yard, lost consciousness, and suffered fractures to her left tibia and ankle area.
She subsequently filed a Michigan premises liability lawsuit against the landlord.
Why Was Her Slip and Fall Case Initially Dismissed?
The landlord asked the trial court to dismiss the case without a trial.
Among other arguments, the landlord contended that the porch didn’t require handrails under the Michigan Residential Code and that Murray couldn’t establish that the missing handrail actually caused her injuries.
The trial court agreed that Murray’s testimony was insufficient to establish causation. Because Murray didn’t know why she initially slipped, the court concluded that her claim that a handrail could have prevented or reduced her fall was insufficient to send the case to a jury.
Murray appealed.
The Michigan Court of Appeals Reversed
The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the case shouldn’t have been dismissed.
The Court explained that a tenant is considered an invitee of a landlord. A Michigan property owner owes an invitee a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect against unreasonable risks of harm caused by dangerous conditions on the property.
Whether the landlord actually breached that duty — in other words, whether the landlord acted unreasonably under the circumstances — is generally a factual question for the jury.
That distinction mattered in Murray’s case.
The landlord argued that because they weren’t legally required to have handrails on the porch in the first place, they couldn’t be liable for failing to maintain the railing that had fallen off.
Murray argued that the landlord failed to keep the existing handrails in reasonable repair.
The Court of Appeals concluded that this dispute created an issue for a jury rather than something the judge should resolve through summary disposition.
What About Michigan’s “Open and Obvious” Rule?
This is one of the most significant parts of the decision for Michigan injury cases.
For years, Michigan’s open-and-obvious doctrine was frequently used to dismiss premises liability cases. If a hazard was sufficiently visible or obvious, a property owner could often argue that it owed no duty to protect the injured person from it.
But the Michigan Supreme Court significantly changed that analysis in Kandil-Elsayed v F&E Oil, Inc.
The Court of Appeals emphasized that after Kandil-Elsayed, whether a condition is open and obvious generally relates to breach and comparative fault, rather than automatically eliminating the property owner’s duty.
As the Court explained, the open and obvious nature of a condition can be considered when determining whether reasonable care was used, but it doesn’t automatically end the property owner’s potential liability.
In practical terms, a property owner generally can’t simply say:
“You could see the dangerous condition, so you have no case.”
Instead, the circumstances surrounding the hazard and the conduct of both the property owner and injured person may have to be evaluated.
For a more detailed explanation of how the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Kandil-Elsayed limited the use of the open-and-obvious defense, read our article, “New Hope for the Injured in Property Claims: Michigan Court Ruling Overturns Open and Obvious Defense.”
She Didn’t Know Why She Slipped — So How Could She Prove Causation?
This may be the most interesting part of the case.
Murray admitted that she didn’t know what caused her initial slip.
Normally, an injured person still must establish causation. Michigan law doesn’t permit a jury to base liability on pure speculation. Circumstantial evidence, however, can establish causation when it permits reasonable inferences rather than mere guesswork.
Murray’s argument was slightly different from simply claiming:
“The missing railing caused me to slip.”
She testified that while she was falling, she attempted to grab the railing that should have been there.
That created a factual question about whether the presence of the handrail could have prevented the fall — or at least prevented it from being as severe.
The Court of Appeals concluded that there was enough evidence for a jury to consider the issue. Murray claimed that she wouldn’t have fallen, or at least wouldn’t have fallen to the same degree, if the handrail had been present. Therefore, dismissal before trial was improper.
What Does This Decision Mean for Michigan Slip and Fall Cases?
Murray doesn’t mean that every person who falls on someone else’s property automatically has a successful lawsuit.
An injured person still has to prove the required elements of a Michigan premises liability claim, including duty, breach, causation, and damages.
But the decision illustrates why a premises liability claim shouldn’t necessarily be dismissed simply because the injured person can’t identify the precise mechanics of the initial slip or because the dangerous condition may have been visible.
It also demonstrates why evidence of prior notice can be extremely important. Here, there was evidence that the tenant had notified the landlord about the missing railing long before the accident and had specifically asked when it would be repaired.
For someone injured at an apartment, rental home, business, store, parking lot, stairway, or other property in Michigan, photographs, maintenance requests, text messages, emails, surveillance video, witness statements, inspection records, and prior complaints can become important evidence.
Injured Because of Unsafe Property in Michigan?
Michigan premises liability law has changed significantly in recent years, particularly regarding the open-and-obvious doctrine. Whether a property owner can be held responsible depends heavily on the specific facts and evidence surrounding the accident.
If you were seriously injured because of a dangerous condition on property in Michigan, speaking with an experienced Michigan premises liability lawyer can help determine whether you may have a claim and what evidence should be preserved.
Attorney Jason Barrix has represented injured people in Michigan for more than 33 years. Throughout his career, he has handled a wide range of premises liability cases involving unsafe property conditions, including slip and fall accidents, negligent property maintenance, and landlord liability claims. Jason Barrix and his skilled team at Barrix Law Firm advocate for clients injured by dangerous property conditions and other acts of negligence in Grand Rapids, Grand Haven, Muskegon, Holland, and throughout West Michigan.
Contact us today for a free case review to discuss your legal options, learn whether you may have a premises liability claim, and get the experienced guidance you need to move forward.
Note: Attorney Jason Barrix is not directly involved in the cases mentioned in this news report. The legal analysis provided in this article reflects his professional interpretation of the Court’s decision and its potential implications for Michigan premises liability law.
