What this article is about (and who it’s for)
If you or a loved one was injured after falling on stairs at a rental property, you may be wondering whether a landlord can be held responsible when a handrail was missing or unsafe. Many people also wonder whether a case can be dismissed early because the problem was “easy to spot.”
This article explains a Michigan Court of Appeals decision in plain language—Murray v NOM Estates Properties AA2, LLC. In that case, the Court said the tenant’s claim involving exterior stairs and a missing handrail should not have been dismissed before trial on the record presented, because important fact questions remained. That does not mean the tenant automatically wins; it means the case could proceed.
Education is the goal here. We will walk through basic ideas Michigan courts often consider in stair-fall cases, including whether the landlord acted reasonably, whether the missing handrail may have mattered to the fall, and how “easy-to-see” hazards may be analyzed under current Michigan law.
Thomas, Garvey & McKenna, PLLC is based in St. Clair Shores and serves clients in Macomb County and the Metro Detroit area, as well as representing injured people throughout Michigan. If you are in southeast Michigan and seeking clarity after a serious fall, having a local office can make it easier to ask questions, share documents, and understand what the process may entail. For a broader overview of injury cases, visit our Personal Injury page.
For a broader overview of injury cases, visit our Personal Injury page. When you are ready to discuss your specific situation, you can also reach us through our Contact page for a consultation.
The Murray case in a simple timeline
To understand why the Michigan Court of Appeals allowed this case to proceed, it helps to review the timeline outlined in the opinion.
The plaintiff was a tenant at a rental property in Flint, Michigan. The opinion describes an exterior porch and stair area that originally had two handrails. Over time, one handrail allegedly rusted, failed, and fell off, leaving only one handrail in place. The remaining handrail was also described as loose or unstable.
The tenant reported the missing handrail to the landlord. The opinion also describes a later text message exchange in which the tenant asked when it would be repaired, and the landlord responded that it was “working on it.”
According to the tenant’s testimony summarized by the court, she fell on the exterior stairs/porch area in the early morning. She said she did not know exactly what caused the initial slip. As she fell, she tried to grab the handrail that was missing in order to stop or slow the fall.
These details mattered on appeal because they raised factual questions about what the landlord knew, the condition of the stairs and handrails, and whether the missing handrail could have played a role—questions the Court of Appeals said should not have been decided through early dismissal on the record presented.
Why the case was dismissed at first—and why the appeals court brought it back
Many people are surprised to learn that a personal injury claim in Michigan can end before a trial ever begins. That can happen when the defense asks the court to dismiss the case early—arguing that even if the plaintiff’s version of events is assumed to be true for purposes of the motion, Michigan law still does not allow the claim to proceed.
That is what occurred in Murray v NOM Estates Properties AA2, LLC. The landlord asked the trial court to dismiss the tenant’s premises liability claim before trial. This is a premises liability claim involving a rental property—not a workers’ compensation case or an auto accident claim—so different legal issues may apply depending on how the injury occurred. One theme in the landlord’s arguments was that the missing or unstable handrail should not be treated as legally meaningful under the facts presented. The landlord also argued there was not a sufficient basis, at that stage, to treat the condition as a breach of the landlord’s duties under Michigan premises liability principles.
In many stairway cases, parties also dispute whether building-code requirements were met. Code compliance can be relevant, but it does not always resolve the broader question of reasonable care or whether the stairs were fit for their intended use under Michigan landlord-tenant obligations.
The trial court agreed with the landlord and dismissed the case. In plain English, the trial judge concluded that the claim could not proceed based on the record presented at that point in the litigation.
The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed and sent the case back for further proceedings. The Court’s point was not that the tenant had “proved” the case. Instead, the Court explained that genuine factual disputes remained and should not have been resolved through early dismissal on that record. When reasonable people can interpret the evidence differently, Michigan courts often allow the case to proceed to later stages—sometimes including a jury deciding key factual questions.
The takeaway is straightforward: stair-fall cases often turn on specific facts—such as what the landlord knew, what condition the handrails were in, and whether the missing handrail could have affected the fall—rather than a single argument that automatically ends the case at the outset.
The basic questions Michigan law looks at in stair-fall cases
After a stairway fall at a rental property, many people want a quick yes-or-no answer about whether the law may provide a claim. Michigan premises liability cases usually come down to a few core questions. Learn more about Michigan slip and fall claims. You don’t need legal training to understand the framework—think of it as how the court organizes the story.
Did the landlord have legal responsibilities here?
This is commonly called duty. In plain English, it asks whether the landlord had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to keep the area safe for a tenant. Michigan law generally considers the parties’ relationship and the condition of the property when evaluating this issue.
In rental situations, Michigan law can impose specific statutory maintenance obligations on landlords, and the standard can depend on the area involved—for example, keeping common areas (like exterior stairways) fit for their intended use and keeping the premises in reasonable repair.
Did the landlord act reasonably under the circumstances?
This is commonly called breach. Once a duty exists, the next question is whether the landlord’s conduct fell below what a reasonably careful landlord would have done in a similar situation.
In stair and handrail cases, “reasonable care” can involve fact-driven questions like:
- Was the handrail missing, loose, or damaged?
- Did the landlord know about the condition, or should they have known?
- What, if anything, was done to repair it, secure it, warn about it, or restrict use?
- How long did the condition exist?
Courts often view this as a factual issue, which is why premises cases frequently focus on the condition’s history and the landlord’s response.
Did the condition actually matter to the fall?
This is commonly called causation. It asks whether the unsafe condition was connected to the injury in a meaningful way—rather than being present in the background but unrelated to what happened.
In a missing handrail case, causation may involve questions such as:
- Did the missing handrail contribute to the fall occurring?
- If the fall started for another reason, could a stable handrail have helped stop or reduce the fall?
- Is there evidence that connects the condition to the injury, rather than speculation?
Michigan courts generally allow causation to be shown in more than one way. Sometimes it is direct (for example, a person grabs a rail and it fails). Sometimes it is indirect, based on reasonable inferences from the surrounding facts.
What harm resulted?
Finally, courts consider harm and losses—often called damages. In serious stair-fall cases, which can include medical treatment, time away from work, and the impact an injury has on daily life. What is recoverable and how it is evaluated depends on the facts, the evidence, and how Michigan law applies.
These questions are connected. A missing handrail does not automatically prove a claim—and it also does not automatically defeat one. Premises liability cases often turn on how these basic questions play out in light of the specific facts.
If the danger was “easy to see,” does that end the case?
After a stairway fall, people sometimes hear a phrase that can feel discouraging: “It was obvious.” In Michigan premises liability cases, this idea is often described as an “open and obvious” condition—meaning a danger that an average person could notice upon casual inspection.
A common misconception is that if something was easy to see, the injured person automatically has no case. Michigan law is more nuanced than that. Courts may consider how readily apparent the condition was when evaluating whether the landlord acted reasonably and whether the injured person shares some responsibility for what happened. Under current Michigan law, a condition being ‘easy to see’ is generally treated as part of the reasonableness and shared-responsibility analysis, rather than automatically ending a case at the outset.
Missing-handrail situations often raise questions that go beyond what can be seen at a quick glance. For example:
- How long was the handrail missing or unsafe?
- Did the landlord know about the condition, or should the landlord have known?
- What, if anything, was done to repair it, secure it, warn about it, or restrict use?
- If the fall started for another reason, could a stable handrail have helped stop or reduce the fall?
In Murray v NOM Estates, the Michigan Court of Appeals indicated that the case should not have been dismissed early on the record presented. The broader point is that stairway and handrail cases can be fact-driven, and an “easy-to-see” argument does not always resolve everything at the outset.
The practical takeaway is this: if someone says “it was obvious,” that is not necessarily the end of the conversation under Michigan law. It may be one factor among many in determining whether the landlord used reasonable care and how responsibility should be evaluated.
Why notice and repair timing can matter in rental stair cases
One of the primary questions in many rental stair-fall cases is simple: did the landlord know about the problem, and what happened after that? Michigan premises liability claims are often fact-driven, and a landlord’s knowledge of a potentially dangerous condition (often called notice) can be an important part of the overall analysis.
What “notice” means in plain English
“Notice” generally refers to whether the landlord:
- Knew about the condition (for example, a tenant reported it), or
- Should have known about it (for example, the problem existed long enough that reasonable inspections or maintenance would likely have discovered it)
Notice does not automatically decide a case by itself. But it can affect how a court or jury evaluates whether the landlord acted reasonably under the circumstances.
Why timing can matter
After an unsafe handrail is reported, the next question is often: how did the landlord respond? People may reasonably disagree about what response was “enough,” which is why courts often look closely at the timeline. Depending on the facts, courts may consider issues such as:
- How quickly the landlord responded after learning about the condition
- Whether repairs were completed, scheduled, or delayed
- Whether temporary measures were taken (if any) while waiting for repairs
- Whether the condition continued to pose a risk during that time
This is not about requiring perfection. It is about evaluating reasonable care in context.
How the Murray facts fit into this theme
In Murray v NOM Estates, the Court of Appeals’ summary of the record included allegations that the tenant notified the landlord about the missing handrail and later sent a text asking when it would be fixed. The landlord responded that it was “working on it.” Those facts helped frame why the Court saw unresolved questions about reasonableness that should not have been decided through early dismissal on the record presented.
The real-world takeaway
A handrail problem may not feel urgent until someone gets hurt. But Michigan premises cases often focus on the timeline: what was known, when it was known, and what was done about it. In missing-handrail cases, especially, those details can help explain why some claims move forward while others do not.
“I don’t know why I slipped”: proof issues in real-world falls
Stairway falls often happen fast. People lose their balance, their foot catches, or they slip—sometimes in a split second. For that reason, it is common for an injured person to say, “I’m not sure exactly what started it.” That kind of uncertainty does not automatically end a Michigan claim, but it also does not automatically prove one. It usually depends on the facts and the evidence.
Not knowing the exact trigger is different from guessing
There is an important difference between:
- Admitting you don’t know the exact trigger (which can be honest and common), and
- Speculating about what caused the fall without evidence
Michigan courts generally require more than speculation. At the same time, courts recognize that causation can sometimes be shown through circumstantial evidence—facts that allow reasonable conclusions to be drawn even if no one can point to a single moment and say, “this is exactly what happened.”
How this relates to missing handrail cases
In missing-handrail cases, the question is not always whether the missing rail caused the initial slip. Sometimes the issue is whether a safe, stable handrail could have helped:
- Prevent a slip from turning into a full fall down the stairs, or
- Reduce the severity by allowing a person to steady themselves, stop, or slow the fall
That does not automatically prove causation. It explains why handrail conditions may still matter even when the initial slip is unclear.
What the Murray decision illustrates
In Murray v NOM Estates, the tenant testified that she did not know exactly what caused her to slip. She also testified that as she fell, she tried to grab the handrail that was missing in order to stop or slow the fall. The Court of Appeals treated that testimony as part of the record supporting a real factual dispute, rather than dismissing the claim as pure guesswork at the early stage.
Practical consideration
In many stair-fall cases, the “proof” question comes down to whether there are enough concrete facts—such as photos, evidence of the condition, repair history, communications, and testimony—to support a reasonable conclusion that a missing or unsafe handrail played a meaningful role. That is why these cases are often carefully evaluated, and why early guidance can help families understand which information typically matters and which may not.
What this decision does NOT mean
It can be easy to assume a court decision about a missing handrail provides all the answers. It does not. Murray v NOM Estates is useful because it shows how Michigan courts may approach certain issues at the “dismissed before trial” stage—but it also has clear limits. Courts can reach different outcomes in stair-fall cases when the facts, evidence, or procedural record are different.
It does not mean every missing handrail case is valid
Handrails can be missing for many reasons, and every property layout is different. Michigan premises liability cases often turn on details such as the condition, where it was located, what the landlord knew (or should have known), and what the evidence shows. Some cases have strong support. Others do not. This decision does not create a one-size-fits-all rule.
It does not guarantee anyone “wins”
The Court of Appeals did not decide who was right in the end. It did not award compensation. It held only that, based on the record presented at that stage, the case should not have been dismissed at an earlier stage. A case can move forward and still have a range of possible outcomes later.
It does not eliminate shared-responsibility arguments
Even when a landlord may be responsible, Michigan law may still consider whether the injured person shares some responsibility for what happened. Questions about what was visible, what was reasonable, and how the fall occurred may still be argued and evaluated depending on the facts.
It is an unpublished decision
The opinion is labeled “unpublished,” which generally means it is not treated the same way as a published decision that sets binding precedent for all future cases. Even so, unpublished decisions can still be informative because they show how courts apply broader Michigan principles to real-world facts. They may also be cited as persuasive authority, even though they generally do not bind other courts the way published decisions do.
The bottom line is that Murray v NOM Estates is best understood as a reminder that missing-handrail claims are often fact-driven—and that courts do not always view them as the kind of case that should be closed at the outset without a fuller look at the evidence.
Practical takeaways and next steps for Michigan families
Murray v NOM Estates highlights a practical point: missing-handrail staircases are often fact-driven. Outcomes tend to depend less on broad statements like “it was obvious” and more on what the evidence shows about the condition, notice, and whether the handrail could have mattered to the fall.
Here are practical takeaways that apply in many Michigan stair-fall situations:
- A case can sometimes be dismissed early, but courts do not always treat missing-handrail claims as “automatic dismissals.”
- Landlord responsibility often turns on reasonable care, not perfection.
- Notice and timing can matter: what was known, when it was known, and what was done about it may be important.
- Even if someone cannot explain the exact trigger of a slip, courts may still consider whether a missing or unsafe handrail played a meaningful role—so long as there are concrete facts supporting that connection.
- “Easy-to-see” conditions may still be analyzed as part of the overall reasonableness and shared-responsibility discussion rather than ending a claim automatically.
- Documentation can matter because these cases often turn on specific details in the record.
If you are in St. Clair Shores, Macomb County, or the Metro Detroit area and have questions after a serious fall on rental stairs, Thomas, Garvey & McKenna, PLLC can help you understand how Michigan premises liability claims generally work and what next steps may look like. The firm is based in St. Clair Shores and represents injured people throughout Michigan.
For more information, visit our Personal Injury page. If you would like to discuss your situation with the firm, you can reach us through the Contact page or call:
- 586-779-7814
- Toll-free: 1-866-232-5775
- 📍 Serving families throughout Michigan from our St. Clair Shores law office
The firm handles personal injury matters on a contingency basis—you pay no attorney fees unless compensation is recovered.
0 Comments