MODEL CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

The Committee on Model Civil Jury Instructions solicits comment on the following proposal by December 1, 2026. Comments may be sent in writing to Liza C. Moore, Reporter, Committee on Model Civil Jury Instructions, Michigan Hall of Justice, P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909-7604, or electronically to MCJI@courts.mi.gov.

PROPOSED

The Committee proposes amending M Civ JI 19.03 (Duty of Possessor of Land, Premises, or Place of Business to Invitee), and M Civ JI 19.06 (Duty of Possessor of Land, Premises, or Place of Business to Licensee). Deletions are in strikethrough, and new language is underlined.

Chapter 19: Premises Liability (Negligence)

[AMENDED] M CIV JI 19.03

Duty of Possessor of Land, Premises, or Place of Business to Invitee

(1) (a) A possessor of land has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect an invitee from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land. that was known to the possessor or that should have been known to the possessor in the exercise of ordinary care.

*(The duty to exercise reasonable care exists where the condition was known to the possessor or should have been known to the possessor in the exercise of ordinary care. In determining whether the possessor should know of the condition, you should consider the character of the condition and whether the condition existed for a sufficient length of time that a possessor exercising ordinary care would discover the condition.)

Notes on use

*This paragraph should be used only if there is an issue of constructive notice or inspection. This paragraph should not be used where the possessor has created the condition or where notice is not otherwise in dispute. See Hulett v Great Atl & Pac Tea Co, 299 Mich 59, 65-68; 299 NW 807 (1941); Pugno v Blue Harvest Farms LLC, 326 Mich App 1, 18-19; 930 NW2d 393 (2018); Berryman v K mart Corp, 193 Mich App 88, 93; 483 NW2d 642 (1992).

Comments

See Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95; 1 NW3d 44 (2023).

On the subject of constructive notice, see Clark v Kmart Corp, 465 Mich 416, 419; 634 NW2d 347 (2001); and Banks v Exxon Mobil Corporation, 477 Mich 983, 983-984; 725 NW2d 455 (2007);.

oOn the subject of inspection, see James v Alberts, 464 Mich 12, 19-20; 626 NW2d 158 (2001).

On the subject of liability to invitees injured by the criminal acts of third parties, see MacDonald v PKT, Inc, 464 Mich 322; 628 NW2d 33 (2001).

History

M Civ JI 19.03 was added January 1982. Amended January 1994, June 2003, March 2005, December 2005, January 2024.

[AMENDED] M CIV JI 19.06

Duty of Possessor of Land, Premises, or Place of Business to Licensee

A possessor of [ land / premises / a place of business ] is liable for physical harm caused to a licensee by a condition on the [ land / premises / place of business ] if, but only if —

*(a) the possessor knew or should have known of the condition; and

(ab) the possessor knew or should have known of the condition and should have realized that it involved an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee, and should have expected that [ he / she ] would not discover or realize the danger; and

(bc) the possessor failed to warn the licensee of the danger; and

(cd) the licensee did not know or have reason to know of the danger.

Note on use

If there is no dispute as to the legal status of the plaintiff as a licensee, the plaintiff’s name should be substituted for the term “licensee” in this instruction.

If there is a factual question as to the legal status of the plaintiff as invitee, licensee, or trespasser, M Civ JI 19.01 should be given.

*This paragraph should not be used where the possessor created the condition or where notice is not otherwise in dispute. See Hulett v Great Atl & Pac Tea Co, 299 Mich 59, 65–68; 299 NW 807 (1941); Pugno v Blue Harvest Farms LLC, 326 Mich App 1, 18–19; 930 NW2d 393 (2018); Berryman v K Mart Corp, 193 Mich App 88, 93; 483 NW2d 642 (1992).

Comment

See Preston v Sleziak, 383 Mich 442; 175 NW2d 759 (1970). Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591; 614 NW2d 88 (2000), overruled Preston only insofar as Preston might be read as adopting the public invitee portion of the definition of “invitee” in the Restatement Torts, 2d, § 332, p 176.

While a possessor owes no duty to pedestrians regarding the natural accumulations of ice and snow on public sidewalks abutting the possessor’s land, this rule does not change the duty owed by a possessor to a licensee on the possessor’s private premises. Altairi v Alhaj, 235 Mich App 626; 599 NW2d 537 (1999), lv den, 461 Mich 1021; 611 NW2d 797 (2000).

In Burnett v Bruner, 247 Mich App 365; 636 NW2d 773 (2001), the Court of Appeals held that it was reversible error for the trial court to give an instruction to the jury modeled after an earlier version of M Civ JI 19.06. The Court held that a landowner only owes his or her licensees a duty to warn and does not owe a duty to inspect or repair the premises. The 2006 amendment deletesd the offending provision from subpart (b) (now subpart (c)). Therefore, it is not necessary to include the supplemental instruction sought by the defendant in Burnett.

History

M Civ JI 19.06 was added January 1982. Amended June 2006.