e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 79041
Opinion Date : 03/02/2023
e-Journal Date : 03/13/2023
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Taylor v. Gordon Mgmt. Co., Inc.
Practice Area(s) : Negligence & Intentional Tort
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Rick, M.J. Kelly, and Riordan
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Slip & fall on ice; Premises liability; Benton v Dart Props, Inc; Duty owed to an invitee; Hoffner v Lanctoe; Open & obvious danger; Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc; Wintry conditions; Principle that black ice is open & obvious when there are indicia of a potentially hazardous condition, including the specific weather conditions present at the time of plaintiff’s fall; Janson v Sajewski Funeral Home, Inc; Effective unavoidability

Summary

Holding that the snow and ice on which plaintiff fell was an open and obvious condition that was not effectively unavoidable, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant-management company. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on ice as she exited a vehicle her fiancé had parked under a carport in the parking lot of her fiancé’s mother’s apartment complex. The trial court found the snow and ice was an open and obvious hazard and granted summary disposition for defendant. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that black ice beneath the snow was not an open and obvious condition and that, even if it was, it was effectively unavoidable. “Plaintiff admitted that she observed a layer of snow on the parking lot before she stepped from the vehicle. Even if the ice had not been covered with snow, these wintry conditions presented indicia of a potentially hazardous condition in the parking lot to alert an average person with ordinary intelligence to the potential danger of slipping.” As such, the ice was open and obvious. In addition, the hazard was not effectively unavoidable. “There are a number of possibilities that plaintiff could have chosen to avoid the snow and ice condition. [She] could have asked her fiancé to park in a different location, or she could have arranged to have the social visit on a different day. Plaintiff was not ‘required or compelled to confront’ a dangerous hazard.”

Full PDF Opinion