What is Fit? Michigan Supreme Court Continues to Shake Up Premises Liability

Since 2023 when the Supreme Court issued its monumental decision in Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, where the open and obvious element of a defective condition was moved from a question of duty to that of breach, the Court has continued to shake up decades’ long case law governing premises liability claims. The July 20, 2026, opinion in Bowerman v Red Oak Mgmt Co, Inc, is yet another transformative decision. This time, taking aim at two things: first, clarifying when a claim arising from a condition on land sounds in ordinary negligence versus premises liability; and second, limiting the “mere inconvenience” standard from Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP in statutory claims under MCL 544.139(1)(a), holding now that “mere inconvenience” itself is insufficient to defeat characterizations that common areas are generally fit for their intended purposes. Now, “mere inconvenience” is but a mere consideration when determining fitness, but not wholly dispositive.