Carroll v. Read

Filing 19

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEITH CARROLL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-13862
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
LINDA READ,
Defendant.
__________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed July 3,
2013. Plaintiff filed a response on July 23, 2013, and a supplemental exhibit on
August 15, 2013.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff Keith Carroll and his wife, Tamika Carroll, rented a home in Hazel
Park, Michigan, from Defendant Linda Read beginning in May 2010. Plaintiff
contends that they began having electrical problems in the home’s computer room
in October 2010. Plaintiff states that he contacted the property manager, Dave
Southern, about a power outage in that room. Southern sent someone out to
address the problem. According to Plaintiff, however, they suffered another power
outage in the computer room in August 2011. Defendant again sent out a

repairman to fix the problem. Plaintiff states that the power again went out in the
computer room in December 2011, and Dave Southern addressed the problem
himself. See Pl.’s Dep. at 65-69, 77-78, 82-84. Mrs. Carroll states that they
experienced “multiple occurrences of furnace power loss, maintenance issues, and
power surges/loss in the computer room,” about which she informed Southern and
Read. Affidavit of Tamika Carroll at ¶ 3-4.1
On January 18, 2012, Mrs. Carroll entered the computer room, turned on the
light switch, and saw that the light bulbs went out. When Plaintiff attempted to
change the bulbs, he was electrocuted and fell from the ladder on which he was
standing. Mrs. Carroll called 911; EMS treated Plaintiff for burns and
administered an EKG. Plaintiff later saw his physician regarding his injuries,
including reported pain in his neck, shoulder, and back. After Plaintiff told
Defendant about the accident, Defendant installed a new breaker box as well as a
new light fixture and electrical outlets in the computer room.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff filed this negligence action against Defendant in state court; it was

1

Defendant objects to the court’s consideration of Mrs. Carroll’s affidavit.
The court will overrule those objections, provided that Defendant has the
opportunity to depose Mrs. Carroll prior to trial. Moreover, Plaintiff’s testimony
creates a sufficient question of fact to preclude summary judgment even if Mrs.
Carroll’s affidavit is not considered for purposes of this motion.
-2-

removed to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction. To state a negligence
claim under Michigan law, a plaintiff must demonstrate a (1) duty; (2) breach; (3)
proximate cause; and (4) damages. Plaintiff contends that Defendant breached her
duty by failing to warn or protect her tenants from a dangerous condition.
Generally, in a premises liability action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant
knew or should have known that an unsafe condition existed. A landlord is “under
a duty to repair all defects of which he knew or should have known,” either as a
result of tenant complaints or a casual inspection of the premises. Raatikka v.
Jones, 81 Mich. App. 428, 430-31 (1978).
Defendant argues that there is no evidence that (1) Plaintiff’s accident
occurred; (2) the fixture or wiring was defective; or (3) Defendant had notice of
any such defect.2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,
however, a genuine issue of fact exists that precludes summary judgment. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
Plaintiff and his wife testified that the accident occurred and Plaintiff sought
medical treatment. Plaintiff experienced several power outages limited to the
computer room where he was electrocuted. Plaintiff and his wife testified that they

2

Defendant points out that the accident occurred while the parties were in
the midst of eviction proceedings. This is relevant to Plaintiff’s credibility, which
is not weighed by the court on a motion for summary judgment.
-3-

complained to Defendant several times about these problems, and each time the
problem was temporarily resolved by Defendant. From these facts, a reasonable
jury could find that Plaintiff’s accident occurred, the wiring in the computer room
was defective, and that Defendant knew or should have known of the defect.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: August 28, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on this date, August 28, 2013, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-4-