Premises liability; Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil Inc; Invitee; Electric door; Duty of reasonable care; Dangerous condition; Actual or constructive notice; Lowrey v LMPS & LMPJ Inc; Reasonable inspection; Tripp v Baker; American National Standards Institute/Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (ANSI/BHMA) standards; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards

The court held that summary disposition for defendant-facility was improper because “there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant breached” its duty to plaintiff-invitee. Plaintiff, an elderly rehabilitation-facility resident using a cane after broken ribs, was injured when a low-energy-power-operated exit door struck him and caused him to fall. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition, finding no evidence of a defect or notice. On appeal, the court acknowledged that “there is no evidence that the door malfunctioned or that the timing of the doors violated the ANSI/BHMA or ADA standards.” But it held that plaintiff’s claim could proceed on whether “additional safety precautions could have been taken in light of the circumstances.” The court reasoned that defendant’s facility served injured and elderly residents, that residents may move slowly or need ambulatory aids, and that “[i]t is foreseeable that residents of the facility may be struck by the power-operated doors if they do not move through the doorway fast enough.” Viewing the evidence in plaintiff’s favor, the court held there was a fact question “whether the absence of door sensors constituted a dangerous condition posing an unreasonable risk of harm.” The court also held that there was a notice question because a factfinder “could reasonably determine that the lack of an electric sensor or other safety precautions in the subject doorway was of such a character that defendant would have discovered it and recognized the potential striking hazard through reasonable inspection.” Reversed and remanded.