## Facts

- Lora Ann Miller leased a second-story apartment at River Chase Apartments, managed by First Choice Management.
- The apartment included a balcony with a metal railing that Miller observed was loose and missing a screw.
- Miller reported the railing condition to management, but it was not repaired.
- First Choice had hired David Grace, Inc. to rebuild balconies to comply with local building codes; Miller alleged her railing was not properly attached and had additional missing fasteners.
- Miller leaned against the railing; it collapsed, causing her to fall from the second-story balcony and suffer injuries.
- Miller testified she believed the balcony was dangerous and that someone might fall.
- Miller sued the landlord/property manager for negligent maintenance and the contractor for negligent construction.

## Issues

1. Whether a residential landlord in Oklahoma owes a general duty of reasonable care to maintain leased premises in a reasonably safe condition, including areas under the tenant’s exclusive control or use.
2. Whether the balcony railing condition was open and obvious as a matter of law, eliminating any duty and supporting summary judgment for the landlord and contractor.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion, reversed summary judgment for both the landlord and the contractor, and remanded.
- The court adopted a general duty of reasonable care for landlords to maintain leased residential premises in a reasonably safe condition, including areas under a tenant’s exclusive control or use.
- The court held summary judgment was improper because factual disputes existed regarding latent defects, notice, causation, and whether the danger was open and obvious.

## Legal Principles

- Residential landlords owe a general duty of reasonable care to maintain leased premises in a reasonably safe condition, including portions under the tenant’s exclusive control or use.
- A landlord’s notice of a reported hazardous condition triggers a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy the condition.
- The “open and obvious” doctrine does not automatically negate duty when latent structural defects may make a condition unreasonably dangerous.
- Whether a condition is open and obvious, and the injured person’s knowledge and appreciation of the risk, are commonly fact questions unsuitable for summary judgment when the record permits competing inferences.
- Contractors may be liable to foreseeable users for negligent construction creating an unreasonably dangerous condition; compliance with applicable standards and proximate cause are typically fact questions.

## Conclusion

The court replaced broad residential landlord immunity with a general negligence duty to maintain leased premises safely and held that alleged latent construction defects and disputed “open and obvious” questions required a trial rather than summary judgment for either the landlord or the contractor.


Miller v. David Grace, Inc., 212 P.3d 1223 (Okla. 2009)