Slip and fall negligence

Holding, inter alia, that the slushy condition of the foyer floor that caused the plaintiff-tenant's fall was open and obvious, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendant-landlord summary disposition. Plaintiff lived in an apartment building owned and operated by defendant. On 1/18/09, as she was descending a stairway and stepping into the tiled foyer of the building, plaintiff slipped and fell, sustaining injuries. She asserted that her slip and fall was the direct result of defendant's negligence in, inter alia, allowing ice, slush, snow, and water to accumulate on the tile and failing to remove or warn of the hazard. She also alleged that defendant breached its statutory obligations as a lessor. The court noted that plaintiff was walking down a stairway directly behind another person (S) and, as she stepped from the first step onto the foyer floor, she immediately fell. S had come to plaintiff's apartment to pick her up and had traversed the foyer, without incident, minutes before. S testified that when he first entered the foyer, he immediately noticed that the rug covering part of the floor had snow all over it. S also testified "that slush on the foyer floor beyond the rug was present and obvious, but that he had no problem walking through the slushy area to access the stairs to plaintiff's apartment." S testified that he went up the stairs (which were wet) to plaintiff's apartment and remained there for about five minutes. S and plaintiff then both came down the stairs, with S carrying a laundry basket and walking in front of plaintiff. S stepped off the bottom step and into the foyer without incident. Plaintiff, who had nothing in her hands, stepped behind S off the bottom stair and onto the foyer floor, immediately falling. She admitted that once she had fallen, she was able to observe the slushy condition of the floor. She also admitted "that once she stood in the foyer after her fall, the condition was readily apparent." The court noted that there was no allegation that the foyer layout, the lighting, or any other extraneous factor worked to conceal the condition. The only thing that prevented plaintiff from seeing the condition of the foyer was S's body in front of her. This was a factor beyond defendant's reach, "transitory in nature and arguably not a specific factor that could be specifically predicted in time or placement, nor controlled or prevented by the premises owner." The court also rejected plaintiff's claim that a question of fact existed as to whether defendant breached its statutory duty to maintain the common area in a manner fit for its intended purpose.