Premises Liability Complaint - Michigan

PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT — MICHIGAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Duty of Care — Visitor Status
6. Count I — Negligence (Premises Liability)
7. Count II — Negligent Maintenance of Property
8. Count III — Failure to Warn
9. Count IV — Willful or Wanton Misconduct
10. Damages
11. Jury Demand
12. Prayer for Relief
13. Verification
14. State-Specific Notes
15. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME] ("Plaintiff"), is an individual residing at [ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Michigan [ZIP CODE].

2. Defendant, [DEFENDANT FULL NAME] ("Defendant"), is [an individual residing at / a Michigan corporation with its registered office at / a corporation organized under the laws of [STATE] authorized to do business in Michigan / a limited liability company organized under the laws of [STATE]], and at all relevant times was the [owner / lessee / occupier / manager] of the real property located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Michigan [ZIP CODE] (the "Premises").

3.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to MCL § 600.605, as the Circuit Court has original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil claims and remedies.

5. The amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.

6. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County pursuant to MCL § 600.1629 because [the cause of action arose in this county / Defendant resides in this county / Defendant conducts business in this county].

4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. At all relevant times, Defendant [owned / leased / occupied / managed / controlled] the Premises located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], Michigan [ZIP CODE].

8. On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT], at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully present on the Premises for the purpose of [PURPOSE OF VISIT].

9. At the time of the incident, there existed on the Premises a dangerous, defective, and hazardous condition, specifically: [DESCRIBE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN DETAIL].

10. Defendant had [actual / constructive] knowledge of the dangerous condition because:

☐ Defendant created the dangerous condition.

☐ Defendant had actual knowledge through [DESCRIBE, e.g., prior complaints, maintenance records, employee reports].

☐ The dangerous condition existed for a sufficient period of time that Defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, should have discovered and remedied it.

☐ The condition was of a recurring nature that Defendant knew or should have known about.

11. As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous condition, Plaintiff [DESCRIBE INCIDENT] and sustained severe and serious injuries.

5. DUTY OF CARE — VISITOR STATUS

12. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was [an invitee / a licensee] on the Premises.

If Invitee:

13. Plaintiff entered the Premises upon the express or implied invitation of Defendant for a purpose connected with the business or activity conducted on the Premises, or for a purpose for which the Premises were held open to the public. As an invitee, Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to exercise ordinary care and prudence to keep the Premises in a reasonably safe condition for the invitee's visit, including a duty to inspect, maintain, and warn of known or discoverable hazards. See Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591 (2000).

If Licensee:

13. Plaintiff entered the Premises with Defendant's permission or acquiescence but primarily for Plaintiff's own purposes. As a licensee, Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to warn of hidden dangers that Defendant knew or had reason to know of and that the licensee did not know or have reason to know of. Defendant owed no duty of inspection or affirmative care to make the Premises safe for the licensee.

6. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY)

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 13 above.

15. Defendant owed Plaintiff the duties described above based on Plaintiff's status as [an invitee / a licensee] on the Premises.

16. Defendant breached these duties in one or more of the following ways:

☐ Failing to maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition;

☐ Failing to inspect the Premises for hazardous conditions;

☐ Failing to correct, repair, or remedy the dangerous condition;

☐ Failing to warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition;

☐ Failing to take reasonable steps to protect visitors from the dangerous condition;

☐ Violating applicable building, safety, or health codes;

☐ [OTHER SPECIFIC ACTS OR OMISSIONS].

17. Defendant's breach of duty was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. COUNT II — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

18. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

19. Defendant had a duty to properly maintain the Premises, including but not limited to [SPECIFY MAINTENANCE DUTIES].

20. Defendant negligently maintained the Premises by [DESCRIBE SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE FAILURES].

21. Defendant's negligent maintenance was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

8. COUNT III — FAILURE TO WARN

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

23. Defendant knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of the dangerous condition on the Premises.

24. Defendant failed to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition, including but not limited to [failure to post warning signs / failure to barricade the area / failure to use cones or markers].

25. Defendant's failure to warn was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

9. COUNT IV — WILLFUL OR WANTON MISCONDUCT

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

27. Defendant's conduct was willful, wanton, and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others, in that Defendant [DESCRIBE EGREGIOUS CONDUCT, e.g., was aware of repeated safety complaints and failed to act, deliberately ignored code enforcement orders, failed to correct hazards despite knowledge of prior similar incidents].

28. By reason of Defendant's willful and wanton conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages.

10. DAMAGES

29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the following injuries and damages:

a. Medical Expenses: Past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses, including hospitalization, surgery, physician visits, physical therapy, prescription medications, diagnostic testing, and rehabilitation.

b. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Past and future loss of wages, income, and diminished earning capacity.

c. Pain and Suffering: Past and future physical pain and suffering.

d. Mental Anguish: Past and future mental anguish, emotional distress, fright, and shock.

e. Disability and Impairment: Past and future physical disability and impairment.

f. Disfigurement: Past and future disfigurement.

g. Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Past and future loss of enjoyment of life.

h. Loss of Consortium: [IF APPLICABLE — Plaintiff's spouse has been deprived of the society, companionship, affection, and conjugal relations of Plaintiff.]

i. Exemplary Damages: [IF APPLICABLE — In an amount to be determined at trial.]

11. JURY DEMAND

30. Plaintiff will file a separate written jury demand and pay the jury fee within the time required by MCR 2.508(B)(1). This Complaint alone is not the jury demand.

12. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:

1. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
2. Exemplary damages [IF APPLICABLE];
3. Prejudgment interest as permitted by MCL § 600.6013;
4. Taxable costs of this action;
5. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME] (P[NUMBER])
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[ADDRESS LINE 2]
[CITY], Michigan [ZIP CODE]
Telephone: [PHONE]
Email: [EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME]

13. VERIFICATION

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]

I, [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME], being first duly sworn, depose and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

________________________________________
[PLAINTIFF FULL NAME]

Subscribed and sworn to before me this [____] day of [MONTH], [YEAR].

________________________________________
Notary Public, [COUNTY] County, Michigan
My Commission Expires: [DATE]

14. STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

Visitor Classification Retained. Michigan retains the traditional common-law distinctions among invitees, licensees, and trespassers. The duty owed depends on the plaintiff's status at the time of injury. Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591 (2000).

Comparative Fault. Under MCL §§ 600.2957, 600.2959, and 600.6304, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. If the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, noneconomic damages are barred, but economic damages remain recoverable after the percentage reduction.

Open and Obvious Conditions. Kandil-Elsayed overruled Lugo's duty-based framework. Openness and obviousness remain relevant to breach and comparative fault, and the factfinder considers whether the possessor should have anticipated harm despite any obviousness. The former narrow “special aspects” gateway is overruled.

Statute of Limitations. Generally three years after accrual under MCL §§ 600.5805(1)-(2) and 600.5827; calculate claim-specific accrual and tolling from the facts.

Government Property. Claims against governmental agencies are governed by the Governmental Tort Liability Act (MCL § 691.1401 et seq.). Section 691.1404's 120-day notice applies specifically to defective-highway claims; claims against the State ordinarily require separate MCL § 600.6431 analysis, including its six-month period for personal-injury and property-damage claims.

Landlord Liability. MCL § 554.139 imposes a duty on landlords of residential premises to keep the premises and common areas fit for their intended use and in reasonable repair. This duty cannot be waived by lease agreement.

Non-Economic Damages Cap. Michigan does not cap non-economic damages in standard premises liability cases (caps apply in medical malpractice).

Affidavit of Merit. Not required in standard premises liability cases (required only in medical malpractice).

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• MCL § 600.2959 — Comparative Fault
• MCL §§ 600.5805(1)-(2), 600.5827 — Limitations and Accrual
• MCL § 600.6304 — Allocation of Fault
• MCL § 554.139 — Landlord Duty to Maintain
• MCL § 691.1401 et seq. — Governmental Tort Liability Act
• Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591 (2000) (visitor status)
• Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., 512 Mich. 95 (2023) (current open-and-obvious framework; overruling Lugo in relevant part)
• Michigan Civil Jury Instructions, Ch. 19 (Premises Liability)