Negligence & Intentional Tort

Issues: Premises liability; Absolute defense of impairment where plaintiff is more than 50% at fault; MCL 600.2955a; Harbour v. Correctional Med. Servs., Inc.; Duty to invitee; Lugo v. Ameritech Corp.; The "open and obvious" danger doctrine; "Special aspects"; Price v. Kroger Co. of MI; Whether black ice is open and obvious; Slaughter v. Blarney Castle Oil Co.; Janson v. Sajewski Funeral Home, Inc.; Hoffner v. Lanctoe; Abke v. Vandenberg

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Case Name: Cole v. Henry Ford Health Sys.

e-Journal Number: 58389

Judge(s): Young, Jr., Cavanagh, Markman, Kelly, Zahra, McCormack, and Viviano

 

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment (see e-Journal # 57180 in the 6/24/14 edition) and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of an order granting the defendant summary disposition. The court held that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's "determination that the hazard that caused the plaintiff's slip and fall was not an open and obvious danger that an average user of ordinary intelligence would discover on casual inspection." The court noted that the "so-called 'black ice' was detected by four other witnesses who viewed the premises after the plaintiff's accident. There were several patches of ice evident in the area" where he fell. Further, "there were numerous indicia of a potentially hazardous condition being present," including "seven inches of snow on the ground, some precipitation the previous day, and a recent thaw followed by consistent temperatures below freezing. A reasonably prudent person would foresee the danger of icy conditions on the mid-winter night the plaintiff's accident occurred. In light of the open and obvious nature of the hazard," the court did not consider defendant's arguments about the applicability of MCL 600.2955a.

 

Full Text Opinion

Issues: Automobile negligence; The No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); MCL 500.3135; Kreiner v. Fischer; McCormick v. Carrier; Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co.; Bergen v. Baker; Maiden v. Rozwood; Peña v. Ingham Cnty. Rd. Comm'n; Edry v. Adelman; Making a bad situation worse; Fisher v. Blankenship; Whether the plaintiff's affidavit was properly added to the record on remand; Sokel v. Nickoli; People v. Kennedy; The trial court's discretion and authority to expand the record if the remand order does not foreclose expansion; "Reconsideration"; KBD & Assoc., Inc. v. Great Lakes Foam Techs., Inc.; Yoost v. Caspari

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Case Name: Wiedyk v. Poisson

e-Journal Number: 58390

Judge(s): Young, Jr., Cavanagh, Markman, Kelly, Zahra, McCormack, and Viviano

 

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment (see e-Journal # 57008 in the 5/29/14 edition) and reinstated the trial court's judgment for the defendants. The court concluded that the trial court "was not required to expressly rule on whether the plaintiff's attempt to expand the record on remand with his affidavit was proper, and even if the affidavit was considered by the trial court, it did not err in determining that summary disposition for the defendants was warranted." The court held that "considered in light of the record developed in this case, the affidavit's conclusory allegations regarding the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and impairments, nearly all of which the plaintiff suffered prior to the accident in question, were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff's ability to lead his pre-accident lifestyle was impacted by the 2005 accident."

 

Full Text Opinion
Back to e-Journal Mobile
News/Moves | Classifieds | Contacts | Full Version

© 2014 State Bar of Michigan