Levendoski v. Geisenhaver
Michigan Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Plaintiff Myrtle Levendoski sustained injuries from a fall allegedly resulting from a defective sidewalk adjoining property owned by the defendants. Plaintiffs brought suit on the theory that defendants breached a duty to them imposed by Ordinance No 34, § 3, of the city of Warren. It provides:
“No person shall permit any sidewalk which adjoins property owned by him to fall into a state of disrepair or be unsafe.”
- Defendants were granted summary judgment on the ground that'the ordinance does not create a cause of action agaihst an abutting property owner in favor of one injured by a defective…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Taylor v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- City of Detroit v. ChaffeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Grooms v. Union Guardian Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1944
3Cited by21 opinions
- Quinlivan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1975
- Fisher v. Johnson Milk Co., Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1970
- Bivens v. Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
- Struzik v. City and County of HonoluluHawaii Supreme Court · 1968
- Woodworth v. BrennerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.