Fall while boarding a boat; Common-law duty of care; Schultz v. Consumers Power Co.; Stern v. Franklin; Paige v. City of Sterling Heights; Lindsley v. Burke; Claim that the defendant somehow assumed responsibility for plaintiff’s safety while boarding; Distinguishing Sweet v. Ringelski; Whether the defendant had a statutory duty to plaintiff under MCL 324.80145 & MCL 324.80147; MCL 324.80147(1); “Operate” defined; MCL 324.80103(g); Whether the boat was “under way” at the time of plaintiff’s accident; Binno v. Binno

The court held that no genuine question of material fact existed as to the absence of a common-law duty on behalf of the defendant as to the plaintiff’s boarding of the boat. Also, as to plaintiff’s statutory duty, the court held that as in Binno, defendant was not “operating” the boat at the time of plaintiff’s fall, and the trial court did not err in concluding that he owed plaintiff no duty under MCL 324.80145 or MCL 324.80147. It further held that having determined as a matter of law that plaintiff failed to show the existence of a duty, the trial court correctly granted summary disposition to defendant. Plaintiff was injured when she fell while attempting to board defendant’s boat from a dock. She argued that the trial court erred in finding that defendant owed no common-law duty of care to secure the boat before she boarded, or in the alternative that he undertook responsibility for her boarding and thus owed her a duty to avoid increasing the risk of harm to her. The court disagreed in both respects. Plaintiff urged the court to find that Stern was wrongly decided and decline to follow it under the principle of stare decisis. It was not free to do so. “Only the Supreme Court may overrule one of its decisions; until it does so, lower courts are bound to it regardless of their belief in the soundness of its reasoning or its age.” Nor did it find Stern “materially distinguishable as involving a passenger disembarking from a boat rather than, as here, boarding one. In both situations, the knowledge that ‘an element of danger and extra caution is required’ is implicated.” Thus, the court held that pursuant to Stern there was “no general common-law duty to secure a boat before passengers board it.” Further, the record was clear that “defendant did not actually undertake to assist plaintiff in boarding the boat. The common law does ‘impose an obligation upon everyone who attempts to do anything, even gratuitously, for another, to exercise some degree of care and skill in the performance of what he has undertaken, for nonperformance of which duty an action lies.’” However, plaintiff’s own deposition testimony indicated that “defendant did not attempt to aid her in boarding the boat; rather, he merely yelled rude remarks to her and berated her." She "admitted that she attempted to board the boat without any assistance from defendant. Further, although defendant at one point called upon her to ‘jump’ into the boat, she did not follow this suggestion, if in fact it was a serious one.” Affirmed.