Michigan Premises Liability Lawyers

Can I sue after being injured on unsafe property in Michigan? A Michigan premises liability claim may exist when a property owner, business, landlord, tenant, manager, security company, contractor, or public entity failed to use reasonable care and that unsafe condition caused an injury. After Kandil-Elsayed, an obvious hazard is not automatically a no-duty bar for invitees, but the case still depends on control, notice, breach, causation, comparative fault, visitor status, and any government-immunity rules.

Premises Liability Claim Map

Premises Liability Is Bigger Than Slip And Fall

Slip and fall claims are part of premises liability, but they are not the whole category. Unsafe property cases can involve broken stairs, loose railings, falling merchandise, poor lighting, parking-lot hazards, inadequate security, apartment common areas, event venues, public buildings, dangerous displays, or unsafe maintenance practices.

Our Michigan slip and fall lawyer page focuses on fall-specific claims. This page is broader. It reviews unsafe property injuries by asking who controlled the area, what the owner or possessor knew, what reasonable inspection or maintenance should have found, what warnings existed, and whether another defendant such as a contractor, security company, landlord, or public entity must be included.

Michigan Premises Law After Kandil-Elsayed

The Michigan Supreme Court's Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc decision, issued July 28, 2023, overruled Lugo v Ameritech and changed how courts analyze open-and-obvious conditions. A defendant should not be able to end every invitee case at the duty stage simply by saying the hazard was visible. The obviousness of the condition now belongs in the breach and comparative-fault analysis, and the Court also replaced the old special-aspects test with the question of whether the land possessor should have anticipated the harm despite the hazard's obviousness.

That change matters, but it is not a guarantee. Premises cases still depend on visitor status, property control, actual or constructive notice, reasonable maintenance, warnings, causation, injury proof, and comparative fault. Under MCL 600.2959, a plaintiff found more than 50% at fault loses noneconomic damages, and any recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.

Who Controlled The Property?

The person or company named on the deed is not always the only responsible party. A tenant may control a retail space. A property manager may control maintenance. A landlord may control apartment common areas. A snow contractor may control ice treatment. A security company may control patrols and access points. A public entity may control a building, sidewalk, street, park, or school property.

We map control before liability. Contracts, leases, maintenance records, incident reports, repair requests, security policies, and prior complaints often show who had the practical ability to fix or warn about the danger.

Negligent Security And Assault On Property

A negligent-security claim is not based only on the fact that a crime occurred. The review asks whether the property owner or possessor had reason to anticipate the risk and failed to take reasonable steps within its control. Prior incidents, poor lighting, broken locks, ignored complaints, inadequate staffing, security policies, camera coverage, and warnings can matter.

These cases are fact-specific. The criminal actor may be responsible, but that does not always end the civil review. If the property had a known security risk and the owner failed to respond reasonably, a premises claim may need to be investigated before records, videos, and witness memories are lost.

Public Property, Schools, And Government Buildings

Unsafe-property claims involving public buildings, schools, parks, sidewalks, roads, police facilities, or municipal parking areas require immediate legal review. Governmental immunity, notice requirements, agency identity, and forum can change the analysis. A road defect may require a different legal path than a building defect. Municipal sidewalk claims have their own statute, MCL 691.1402a, which requires proof the municipality knew or should have known of the defect at least 30 days before the injury, presumes the sidewalk was in reasonable repair unless a defect such as a vertical discontinuity of 2 inches or more is shown, and expressly preserves an open-and-obvious defense even after Kandil-Elsayed.

Do not assume the ordinary personal-injury timeline protects a public-property claim. If a city, county, state agency, school district, road commission, or public authority may be involved, the location and defendant should be reviewed right away.

Evidence That Disappears First

Call (248) 886-8650 before the video, incident report, or maintenance logs disappear. The consultation is free, and there is no attorney fee unless we recover under the written fee agreement.

Serving Premises Liability Victims Across Michigan

Michigan Legal Center reviews unsafe-property claims statewide from offices in White Lake, Southfield, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Flint, Lansing, Kalamazoo, Bay City, Gaylord, and Marquette. Local evidence can matter: Metro Detroit business cameras, Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo property records, Flint and Bay City industrial premises, Lansing public-entity records, northern Michigan winter maintenance, and Upper Peninsula travel and medical proof can all shape a premises case.

If you were hurt on unsafe property, the next step is not guessing whether the owner is responsible. The next step is preserving evidence and getting the property-control, notice, defendant, and deadline questions reviewed while the record still exists.