Opinion
No. 120731.
December 29, 2003.
Reconsideration denied.
No. 120731. Reconsideration of the Court's order of July 11, 2003, 467 Mich 922, is denied, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. Reported below: ( On Remand) 248 Mich App 684.
I agree with the majority's decision to deny reconsideration of this case. I write separately to note that the defendants arguably waived an issue that may have proven highly relevant.
Under our common law, a landlord is typically liable only for hazards in areas over which he or she retains control. See, e.g., Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc., 429 Mich 495, 499 (1988); Cooper v. Lawson, 139 Mich 628, 632 (1905). See also Williams v. Detroit, 127 Mich App 464, 468 (1983). That is not to say, of course, that a landlord may never be liable for injuries in areas that are not common areas. The Legislature has imposed duties beyond those imposed by our case law. See, e.g., MCL 554.139. But here, where the trial court has already held that defendants did not breach a covenant under MCL 554.139, defendants' liability may be limited by the common law. See Woodbury v. Bruckner, Case No. 95-003133-NO (Hon. William F. LaVoy, Monroe Circuit Court, June 10, 2003).
Nonetheless, defendants asked this Court during oral arguments on October 10, 2000, to assume that they were responsible for the state of the rooftop area from which plaintiff sustained her injuries. In light of this concession in our proceedings, we cannot fairly reach the threshold question of whether the defendants were liable for the state of the rooftop in the first place.
Accordingly, I join the majority.
WEAVER, J. I join in the concurring statement of Justice YOUNG.
KELLY, J. I would grant the motion for reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.