Tugender v. Rosenblatt

Michigan Court of Appeals

Tugender v. Rosenblatt

179 N.W.2d 181, 23 Mich. App. 580, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1885

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 1970

DocketDocket 7,368

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 N.W.2d 181 (Tugender v. Rosenblatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tugender v. Rosenblatt, 179 N.W.2d 181, 23 Mich. App. 580, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1885 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal arises from the granting of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Gloria Tugender was a social guest in the home of the defendant, Arthur Rosenblatt, in January of 1968. At about 11 o’clock of that evening, Mrs. Tugender left the home of the defendant and stepped upon the abutting public sidewalk. While on the public sidewalk which she claimed was icy she slipped, fell, and was injured. Gloria Tugender and her husband instituted suit against defendant in the Oakland County Circuit Court. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court. The trial court ruled that the law of Michigan was settled and clear that a private landowner does not owe any duty to keep the abutting public sidewalk free of ice and snow. Plaintiffs appeal and challenge this interpretation of Michigan law.

This Court is convinced that the trial court’s appraisal of defendant’s duty was correct. The general rule, of course, is that there is no common-law liability for maintenance of a sidewalk by an abutter. Grooms v. Union Guardian Trust Co. (1944), 309 Mich 437; Weider v. Goldsmith (1958), 353 Mich 339; Hughes v. City of Detroit (1953), 336 Mich 457; 82 ALR2d 995.

*582 “In the absence of a statute or ordinance to the contrary, the general rule is that there is no duty on an adjoining owner to keep a sidewalk in repair.” Levendoski v. Geisenhaver (1965), 375 Mich 225, 227.

This Court recognized this rule of law in Berman v. LaRose (1969), 16 Mich App 55, 57. As plaintiffs recognize, the existence of an ordinance or statute does not alter the result. Grooms v. Union Guardian Trust Co., supra; Levendoski v. Geisenhaver, supra, p 227. This is true even though the injured party is a business invitee or a social guest.

“It is the generally recognized common-law rule * * # that the owner or occupant of property abutting on a public sidewalk does not, solely by reason of being an abutter, owe to the public, including invitees or business invitees of the abutter, a duty to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition.” 88 ALR2d 331, 337, 338. (Emphasis supplied.)

Affirmed. Costs to defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This appeal arises from the granting of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Gloria Tugender was a social guest in the home of the defendant, Arthur Rosenblatt, in January of 1968. At about 11 o’clock of that evening, Mrs. Tugender left the home of the defendant and stepped upon the abutting public sidewalk. While on the public sidewalk which she claimed was icy she slipped, fell, and was injured. Gloria Tugender and her husband instituted suit against defendant in the Oakland County Circuit Court. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court. The trial court ruled that the law of Michigan was settled and clear that a private landowner does not owe any duty to keep the abutting public sidewalk free of ice and snow. Plaintiffs appeal and challenge this interpretation of Michigan law.

This Court is convinced that the trial court’s appraisal of defendant’s duty was correct. The general rule, of course, is that there is no common-law liability for maintenance of a sidewalk by an abutter. Grooms v. Union Guardian Trust Co. (1944), 309 Mich 437; Weider v. Goldsmith (1958), 353 Mich 339; Hughes v. City of Detroit (1953), 336 Mich 457; 82 ALR2d 995.

*582 “In the absence of a statute or ordinance to the contrary, the general rule is that there is no duty on an adjoining owner to keep a sidewalk in repair.” Levendoski v. Geisenhaver (1965), 375 Mich 225, 227.

This Court recognized this rule of law in Berman v. LaRose (1969), 16 Mich App 55, 57. As plaintiffs recognize, the existence of an ordinance or statute does not alter the result. Grooms v. Union Guardian Trust Co., supra; Levendoski v. Geisenhaver, supra, p 227. This is true even though the injured party is a business invitee or a social guest.

“It is the generally recognized common-law rule * * # that the owner or occupant of property abutting on a public sidewalk does not, solely by reason of being an abutter, owe to the public, including invitees or business invitees of the abutter, a duty to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition.” 88 ALR2d 331, 337, 338. (Emphasis supplied.)

Affirmed. Costs to defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 N.W.2d 181, 23 Mich. App. 580, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tugender-v-rosenblatt-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack