Premises liability; Licensee; Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship; Distinguishing Kendzorek v Guardian Angel Catholic Parish; Duty owed to licensees; Sanders v Perfecting Church; Life of Purpose Christian Church (LOP)

Holding that plaintiff was a licensee and that defendants met their duty of care, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants in this premises liability case. He entered the property to donate food to a food pantry set up in a shed. After placing his food on the shelves, he slipped on a patch of ice when he turned to leave and fell. The court first found that the trial court did not err in ruling that he was a licensee. Defendant-Bernadette’s Faith in Action “was a nonprofit organization that held open its premises to members of the public to take food or clothing from the pantry or leave voluntary donations of food or other items. [It] did not receive a commercial advantage from the donations—members of the public could take food and clothing from the shed as needed, free of charge. It follows that, by inviting people to enter its property to donate to the pantry, Bernadette’s did not open its premises for commercial activity, so plaintiff was not an invitee.” Given that it “did not open its premises to receive a commercial benefit, [he] was a licensee.” While he cited Kendzorek, the court found this case distinguishable “because Bernadette’s did not hold open its property to receive a commercial benefit. Rather, [it] held open its premises for visitors to make voluntary donations, which does not constitute commercial activity.” The court also held that the trial court did not err in ruling that defendants met their duty of care. As to defendant-LOP (the other owner of the property), nothing indicated it “had actual knowledge of, or reason to know about, the ice in the shed—no one complained about ice inside the shed, no one reported that they slipped on ice before plaintiff’s fall, and there is no evidence that LOP had knowledge of water on the shed’s floor. LOP’s lack of knowledge is unsurprising given the evidence that LOP was not involved with the food pantry or shed.” As to Bernadette’s, it “also had no reason to know about the ice before plaintiff’s fall.” One of its owners (D) “inspected the shed the day after plaintiff’s fall and concluded that the ice formed after a pile of snow near the shed melted, leaked underneath the shed, and refroze overnight.” The evidence showed “that Bernadette’s did not have a reason to believe there was a gap under the sides of the shed that would allow water to pool underneath it.” The court also noted that it “had a heat lamp inside the shed that made it less likely” ice would form inside.