Court Opinion

ID: 9737486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:26:37.120519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:59.264243
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). While I agree with the majority’s conclusion regarding indemnification by defendant Americar, I cannot agree with its conclusion that the *170trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition regarding plaintiffs’s nuisance claims. Because a nuisance may not be predicated upon an act or a failure to act, Hobrla v Glass, 143 Mich App 616, 630; 372 NW2d 630 (1985), plaintiffs nuisance claims are insufficient on their face. I would find that the nuisance claims are simply claims of negligence restated as another tort. And, a claim of negligence would fail, given our Supreme Court’s ruling that defendants did not have the duty to protect plaintiff from criminal assaults by third parties. Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc, 429 Mich 495, 499; 418 NW2d 381 (1988). Moreover, criminal activity, by virtue of its deviant nature, is normally unforeseeable, and no higher standard of duty is applied to a business in a "high crime” area than to a business in other areas. Papadimas v Mykonos Lounge, 176 Mich App 40; 439 NW2d 280 (1989), lv den 433 Mich 907 (1989).
Regardless, plaintiffs nuisance claim cannot lie. It cannot be said that the natural tendency of defendants’ conduct was to create danger and inflict injury upon a person or property. By plaintiffs own statement of facts, defendants neither permitted nor acquiesced in the illegal use of their premises by third persons. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and grant defendants’ summary disposition.