Murray v. NOM Estates Properties AA2, LLC and What It Means for Tenants and Injury Victims
The Michigan Court of Appeals has issued another important premises liability decision reinforcing that juries – not judges – should decide most slip-and-fall cases. In Murray v. NOM Estates Properties AA2, LLC, the Court reversed summary disposition for a landlord after a tenant was injured falling from porch stairs that lacked a handrail.
The decision builds directly on the Michigan Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Kandil-Elsayed v. F&E Oil, Inc., which fundamentally changed how Michigan courts analyze open and obvious hazards in premises liability cases. The ruling is especially important for Michigan tenants, renters, and others injured on residential property, where landlords often argue that hazards are “open and obvious” to avoid liability.
Key Takeaway: Slip-and-Fall Cases Belong to the Jury
The Court of Appeals made clear that once a property owner owes a duty and a plaintiff suffers an injury, issues of breach of duty, causation, and comparative negligence are generally questions for the jury, not grounds for dismissal at the summary-disposition stage. This ruling is particularly important for tenants, renters, and others injured on residential or commercial property.
Background: Tenant Injured After Landlord Failed to Repair Handrail
The plaintiff, Jasmine Murray, rented a single-family home in Flint, Michigan. The front porch stairs originally had handrails on both sides, but one handrail rusted and fell off more than a year before her fall.
Ms. Murray repeatedly notified her landlord, NOM Estates Properties, that one handrail was missing, and the remaining handrail was loose and unstable. Despite notice, the landlord did not repair or replace the railing.
In January 2022, Ms. Murray fell while stepping onto the porch on her way to work. She testified that she did not know precisely why she slipped, but as she fell, she instinctively reached for the missing handrail to stop herself. She suffered serious fractures to her leg and ankle.
Trial Court Error: Misuse of the “Open and Obvious” Doctrine
The trial court dismissed the case, concluding that the landlord owed no duty to install a handrail, the condition was open and obvious, and the tenant could not prove causation because she did not know why she slipped.
The Court of Appeals reversed – squarely rejecting that analysis.
How Kandil-Elsayed Changed Michigan Premises Liability Law
Before Kandil-Elsayed, Michigan courts often used the open and obvious doctrine to end cases at the duty stage. That is no longer the law.
Under Kandil-Elsayed, duty is a threshold legal question, and property owners almost always owe invitees a duty of reasonable care. Whether a hazard is open and obvious now goes to breach of duty and comparative fault. Both are typically jury questions.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court improperly relied on outdated case law and failed to apply the Kandil-Elsayed framework.
Landlords Cannot Avoid Liability by Pointing to Building Codes Alone
The landlord argued that the Michigan Residential Code did not require a handrail on the porch. The Court rejected this defense.
Even if a code does not mandate a particular safety feature, landlords may still be negligent for failing to maintain existing safety features, and code compliance does not automatically equal reasonable care.
Whether failing to replace or repair a rusted, fallen handrail was unreasonable under the circumstances is a fact question for the jury.
Causation Can Be Proven with Circumstantial Evidence
The Court also addressed a common defense argument in slip-and-fall cases: “The plaintiff doesn’t know exactly why she fell.” Michigan law does not require plaintiffs to identify the precise mechanism of a fall.
Here, the tenant testified that she reached for the missing handrail while falling, and the absence of the handrail contributed to the severity of her injuries.
The Court held that this circumstantial evidence was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on causation, especially under the post-Kandil-Elsayed framework.
Why Murray Matters for Michigan Injury Victims
This decision is significant because it:
- strengthens protections for tenants and renters
- limits improper use of summary disposition in premises cases
- reinforces that juries weigh reasonableness and fault
- promotes access to justice for injured people
Recent appellate decisions confirm that injured people should not be denied their day in court simply because a hazard was visible or a property owner disputes how a fall occurred.
Olsman MacKenzie Peacock: Michigan Premises Liability Attorneys
At Olsman MacKenzie Peacock, we represent individuals seriously injured due to unsafe property conditions, including:
- slip-and-fall accidents
- missing or defective handrails
- neglected rental properties
- residential and commercial premises liability claims
We closely track developments in Michigan appellate law to ensure our clients receive the full protections the law provides.
If you or a loved one was injured on someone else’s property, you may have rights even if the hazard seemed obvious. Our attorneys are available to evaluate your case.