Lips fall. If you can see it and trip on it, you probably are at fault pursant to Michigan Law.

Holding, inter alia, that any potential protections afforded by MCL 554.139 had no effect in this appeal, and that the danger posed by the broken tile on the top of the stairs was open and obvious, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendant (the company hired by the property owner to maintain the rental property) summary disposition. Plaintiff alleged that she was injured by tripping over defective floor tiling at the top of a flight of stairs in her rental apartment, causing her to fall down the stairs. She alleged that defendant was negligent at common law and under the MHL and MCL 554.139. The court noted that MCL 554.139 "imposes covenants in the lease between a landlord and tenant." Any protection arising from the statute "is purely contractual in nature." Any "negligence or premises liability claims are unaffected since ‘any remedy under the statute would consist exclusively of a contract remedy.'" Plaintiff also sought to rely on provisions of the MHL to impose a statutory duty on defendant as the owner's agent. "However, nearly all of the specific sections cited by plaintiff solely refer to the duties of an ‘owner.'" The court concluded that MCL 125.533(1) eliminated any doubt as to who must comply with the MHL - "‘The owner of premises regulated by this act shall comply with all applicable provisions of the act.'" While plaintiff was correct that MCL 125.538 refers to "owner or agent thereof," this provision did not impose a statutory duty on the agent. "MCL 125.538 provides that, ‘It is unlawful for any owner or agent thereof to keep or maintain any dwelling or part thereof which is a dangerous building as defined in [MCL 125.539].' MCL 125.539, in turn, defines ‘dangerous building' as having one or more serious defects." Plaintiff did not argue or explain how her apartment met any of the conditions set forth in MCL 125.539. Thus, her reliance on MCL 125.538 and 125.539 was misplaced. Since the statutes plaintiff cited did not apply, the court held that defendant did not owe her any statutory duty. Thus, defendant could avail itself of all common law defenses, including the open and obvious doctrine. Like the plaintiff in Corey, "plaintiff admitted that she was aware of the broken tile on the top of the steps and decided to use the steps in any event." Further, the court held that there were no special aspects making the open and obvious condition unreasonably dangerous or effectively unavoidable. "Although plaintiff was required to traverse the steps several times a day, the hazard was not effectively unavoidable." A photo taken by plaintiff clearly showed that the hazard was located on the left side of the stairway opening, leaving about 75% of the width free of any hazard. The court noted that plaintiff admitted to regularly using the stairs "‘several times per day'" without tripping for over two years.