Breach of contract; Intended third-party beneficiary; MCL 600.1405; Koenig v City of S Haven; Brunsell v City of Zeeland; Nuisance; Nuisance per se & nuisance in fact; Ford v City of Detroit; Public nuisance & private nuisance; Adkins v Thomas Solvent Co; Negligence; Premises liability; Finazzo v Fire Equip Co; Duty owed to a licensee; Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship; Principle that property owners generally owe no duty to supervise minor children of guests on their property; Ji Liang by Shaw v Guang Hui Liang; Open & obvious danger; Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc; Negligent supervision; Gross negligence & willful & wanton misconduct

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for defendants-homeowners (the Talans) and the manufacturer (Backyard), seller (Costco), and assembler (WA) of the playset at issue in this case. Plaintiff sued defendants for injuries her daughter (AK) sustained when she fell from a slide at a birthday party. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument the trial court erred by dismissing her breach-of-contract claim against WA because AK was an intended third-party beneficiary. It found she failed to show that “the installation agreement between Backyard and WA included any provision incorporating children who would play on the playset as intended third-party beneficiaries to the agreement.” Moreover, there was no “material distinction between the class of child users of the playsets and the class of members of the public who would use the piers in Koenig, or the class of pedestrians who would use the sidewalk in Brunsell.” Plaintiff did not “identify any contractual language indicating that the contracting parties intended for child users of the equipment to be beneficiaries of the agreement.” The court also upheld the dismissal of her nuisance claim against WA, finding she could not show “the residential playset posed an unreasonable risk of harm to members of the public, or that AK was using the playset in the exercise of a public right when she was injured.” And because AK was a social guest, plaintiff’s allegations also did not support a valid claim of public nuisance. The court further rejected plaintiff’s contention the trial court erred by dismissing her negligence claim against WA. “Although WA may have had temporary control of the property while it was installing the playset, there is no question of fact that it did not have control of the property when AK was injured six years later.” Moreover, the trial court properly dismissed the nuisance claims against Costco and Backyard, and the negligence claim against Costco. Finally, the court held that the trial court did not err by dismissing the premises liability, negligent supervision, and gross negligence claims against the Talans. There was “no genuine issue of fact whether the playset on the Talan defendants’ grassy property was unreasonably dangerous in the first instance[.]” The negligent supervision claim failed because plaintiff “was present at the birthday party when AK fell off the slide.” Lastly, the Talans “had no reason to expect that serious harm would result from the children’s ordinary use of the playset mounted on grass.” Affirmed.