Inadequate Maintenance

Property owners and occupiers owe a duty to use reasonable care to protect people on their premises from unreasonable risks of harm due to dangerous property conditions. Many dangerous property conditions are the result of inadequate maintenance. In order to keep their property reasonably safe, owners and occupiers of land are supposed to maintain their property in good condition, making repairs and providing warnings to visitors as necessary. Failing to maintain a property adequately can give rise to a premises liability claim if a visitor is hurt. If you are injured on someone else's property, you may be able to recover compensatory damages. At Neumann Law Group, our principal, Kelly Neumann, is an award-winning Detroit, Traverse City, and Grand Rapids premises liability lawyer who has regularly secured more than $3 million in personal injury cases each year for the past several years.

If you are suing a property owner or occupier for compensation based on injuries due to inadequate maintenance, you would need to show that there was a dangerous property condition, the property owner either created the hazard or had actual or constructive knowledge about it, the condition was the cause of your injuries, and the owner failed to either fix the problem or provide warnings to you.

It is relatively rare for a plaintiff to be able to prove that a property owner had actual knowledge, so most cases rest on constructive knowledge. This generally means that the owner would have discovered the condition had someone been regularly inspecting the property for hazards and problems. However, in some cases, a property defect is latent or hard to see from casually observing the premises. In that case, the court looks at whether, given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonably prudent property owner or possessor would have conducted a more thorough inspection that would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition. In that case, the fact that the condition could not be casually observed would not stop a jury from finding that a property owner or possessor should have discovered the danger by using reasonable care.

In Michigan, knowledge of a dangerous condition may be imputed to a property owner if the dangerous condition is of a type or has existed for long enough that a reasonable property owner or possessor would have discovered it. For example, in the case of a broken condominium railing, if you can find several condominium owners who witnessed the broken railing over a six-month period, it is likely that there was constructive knowledge on the part of the condominium association.

Some property owners do not use appropriate diligence to maintain their property, even if they invite customers and others onto the premises for business purposes. If you are injured and need to sue for damages due to inadequate maintenance, Neumann Law Group may be able to help you recover the compensation you need and deserve. Our Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Traverse City premises liability attorneys represent people in Petoskey, Warren, Holland, Midland, Muskegon, Saginaw, Wyoming, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Flint, and Ann Arbor, as well as communities throughout the Upper Peninsula. Contact us at 800-525-NEUMANN or via our online form to set up a free consultation with a slip and fall attorney. We also represent injured individuals in California and Massachusetts.