e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 80498
Opinion Date : 11/16/2023
e-Journal Date : 11/29/2023
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Brandon v. The Kroger Co. of MI
Practice Area(s) : Negligence & Intentional Tort
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Boonstra, Gadola, and Maldonado
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Trip & fall in a grocery store; Whether a claim sounds in negligence or premises liability; Pugno v Blue Harvest Farms, LLC; Premises liability; Mouzon v Achievable Visions; Duty owed to an invitee; Finazzo v Fire Equip Co; Open & obvious danger; Kandil-Elsayed v F&E Oil, Inc; Lugo v Ameritech Corp

Summary

Holding that the trial court erred by granting defendant-grocery chain summary disposition of plaintiff-shopper’s negligence action, the court reversed and remanded. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she sustained when she tripped and fell over a dolly at defendant’s grocery store. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant, stating that “a case like this is a premises liability case” and holding that the hazard was “an open and obvious condition with no special aspects.” On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by finding her claims sounded solely in premises liability, not ordinary negligence. “[P]laintiff theorized that an employee created a hazardous condition on the land, notwithstanding that the creation of this hazard may have occurred mere minutes or moments before plaintiff’s fall. This theory sounds in premises liability.” However, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by finding the hazard was open and obvious, noting that “even under the Lugo standard for open and obvious hazards, the trial court erred by holding that the alleged hazard was open and obvious.” It noted a genuine issue of material fact remained “as to whether the hazard that plaintiff alleges caused her fall was reasonably discoverable on casual inspection.” Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “reasonable minds could differ about whether [she] should have foreseen the danger.” Although defendant claimed she “could have avoided the danger by ‘watching her step,’ plaintiff testified that she had observed that the area behind her was clear only moments before.” The court rejected the contention that “the ‘reasonable observer’ standard requires a person to focus their gaze constantly at their feet for fear of hazards.”

Full PDF Opinion