––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
- Posted June 28, 2011
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Law Life: Is self-storage facility liable for renter's death?

BOSTON, MA -- Did a Michigan self-storage facility have any duty to prevent the death of a customer who accidentally locked himself in the trunk of a vintage car he was restoring?
Earlier this month, the state's court of appeals decided that there could be no liability, whether one looked to the terms of the company's rental agreement or applied ordinary negligence principles.
The case involved the tragic death of Anthony Lagos at the Maple Village Self-Storage facility in Washtenaw County.
Lagos leased a unit at the facility in 2003 and used it to keep a red 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. Lagos' schedule sometimes prevented him from working on the car during normal business hours, so the storage facility had granted him 24-hour access to his rental unit.
On the evening of July 9, 2005, Lagos went to the facility and parked the Cutlass outside of his storage unit, partially blocking access to the storage units on either side of his unit.
Sometime between 9:35 p.m. and 10 p.m., Lagos crawled into the trunk of his car to repair a taillight. Somehow, the trunk lid closed, trapping Lagos.
Between 9:45 p.m. and 10 p.m., William Davis III -- the owner of Maple Village Self-Storage -- drove through the facility to see that all was secure.
Davis drove by the Cutlass during his patrol of the grounds, but detected nothing amiss in light of Lagos' typical habits.
The next day, Gerald Block, the property manager, returned from a vacation and saw the Cutlass still parked outside Lagos' storage unit. Again, this was not unusual, so Block did not investigate until around 9 p.m. when he made his final rounds before closing time.
Block saw the keys dangling from the trunk lock and opened the trunk. He found the lifeless body of Lagos, who had suffocated.
Lagos' estate sued Maple Village Self-Storage for wrongful death. A state trial judge denied the company's motion for summary judgment, but earlier this month the Michigan Court of Appeals decided that there was no basis for finding the self-storage facility liable for the death of its customer.
First, the court concluded that the facility had no duty to inspect the trunk under terms of its rental agreement. Apart from an express release of liability in the rental contract, the Lagos estate could not show that other terms of the agreement imposed an affirmative duty to act under the circumstances of this case.
The court of appeals noted that "the contract plainly indicates that 'management will not supervise use of unit in any way.' Accordingly, Maple Village was not contractually obligated to investigate how the decedent was using his storage unit."
After ruling that the Lagos estate had no claim under a breach of contract theory, the court turned to the issue of whether a duty of care existed under ordinary negligence principles.
The court likewise answered this question in the negative.
First, the court concluded that the death of Lagos was not foreseeable for the purpose of imposing a duty of care on Maple Village.
The court explained that "the danger present on the premises in this case, i.e., a trunk lid that would not remain open by itself, is not a danger traditionally associated with the nature of the relationships between the parties in this case. ...
"Indeed, the danger is not one created by defendants or otherwise a condition of the land to which defendants subjected the decedent by inviting the decedent onto their premises. In fact, the dangerous condition was brought onto the premises by the decedent and there is no evidence that defendants had any knowledge of the presence of the dangerous condition."
The court concluded that "requiring defendants to open the trunk of a vehicle parked on the premises after hours is outside the scope of any inspection duty assumed by defendants, especially where it was not foreseeable that the decedent would be injured if Davis did not undertake the affirmative act of opening the trunk." (Estate of Lagos v. Davis)
Published: Tue, Jun 28, 2011
headlines Detroit
headlines National
- NextGen UBE ‘blueprint’ welcome, but more info on new bar exams needed, sources say
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Lawyer accused of hitting rapper Fat Joe’s process server with his car
- Trump administration sues Maryland federal court and its judges over standing order on deportations
- Law firms consider increasing capital contributions by equity partners
- BigLaw firm lays off 5% of business professional staff