Action for injuries arising when the plaintiff was pinched between two vehicles at a gas station; Negligent design; Cacevic v. Simplimatic Eng’g Co.; Product liability analysis; Lawrenchuk v. Riverside Arena, Inc.; Novotney v. Burger King Corp. (On Remand); Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational Indus. (On Rehearing); Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co.; Gregory v. Cincinnati, Inc.; Principle that an expert’s opinion must be based on sufficient data or facts; Amorello v. Monsanto Corp.; MRE 702; Failure to warn; Laier v. Kitchen; The “open and obvious danger” doctrine; Lugo v. Ameritech Corp.; Relevance of information on prevailing industry standards; Marietta v. Cliff’s Ridge, Inc.; Whether the trial court should have considered a written summary of an expert’s opinion; MCR 2.119(B); Premises liability; Benton v. Dart Props., Inc.; Quinto v. Woodward Detroit CVS, LLC; Joyce v. Rubin; “Invitee” status; Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship; Determining the gravamen of an action; Adams v. Adams (On Reconsideration); Whether an action sounds in premises liability or ordinary negligence; Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs.; James v. Alberts; Jahnke v. Allen

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant-Costco Wholesale’s gas station was negligently designed, and that the open and obvious danger doctrine barred plaintiff’s failure to warn claims. Further, that doctrine barred the remaining portions of his negligence claim, which sounded in premises liability, not ordinary negligence. Plaintiff sustained severe injuries that led to the amputation of both of his legs after he was pinched between two vehicles at defendant’s gas station, which “allowed customers to drive to and away from the gas pumps in one direction only.” As to his negligent design claim, the court noted that he had to prove, through his expert’s (B) testimony, “that the design of defendant’s gas station ‘constituted an unreasonable risk’ to the gas station’s customers.” The court agreed with defendant that B “failed to establish the magnitude of the risk he identified. He did not explain why the chain-reaction type of accident that injured plaintiff is more dangerous or more likely than any other type of pedestrian-vehicle accident in a self-service gas station or other area where pedestrians are in proximity to moving vehicles. He also did not explain why the queue and layout of the gas station create circumstances where a chain-reaction accident is more likely to occur than in any other circumstance involving a high occurrence of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.” He did not provide any data or calculations about “the likelihood of a chain-reaction accident at the subject gas station.” Further, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in determining that plaintiff failed to show that any of B’s “proposed alternatives ‘would have been effective as a reasonable means of minimizing the foreseeable risk of danger’ by showing a positive trade-off between ‘additional utility as a safety measure and . . . the costs and effective use of the product.’” While plaintiff “identified a specific hazard associated with defendant’s innovative gas station design,” his expert “did not offer an opinion on the magnitude of the risk or provide a cost-benefit analysis for an alternative design to reduce the risk.” The court affirmed summary disposition for Costco.