Premises liability; Slip & fall on hair clippings; The open & obvious doctrine; Special aspects; Whether the clippings were unavoidable; Distinguishing Estate of Livings v Sage Inv Group; Effect of a violation of a Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (LARA) inspection regulation; MI Admin Code, R 338.2173(1) (Rule 73); Applicability of Woodbury v Bruckner; Remedy for violation of a rule issued under the Occupational Code; MCL 339.501

Holding that the hair clippings on defendant-salon’s floor were an open and obvious hazard with no special aspects, and that violation of a LARA inspection regulation (Rule 73) did not create a private cause of action, the court reversed the denial of defendant’s summary disposition motion. Plaintiff, a patron of the salon, slipped on the clippings while approaching the salon chair. The court concluded that even if she “did not see the hair on the floor before she fell, she has failed to establish that the hair would not have been discoverable on casual inspection.” In addition, she acknowledged “she knew hair salons have hair on the floor at times, and further admitted that the hair might have been visible had she looked down at the floor. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the hair clippings were open and obvious, despite plaintiff’s failure to discover them” before she fell. As to special aspects, she contended that the clippings “were effectively unavoidable because she was required to walk through them to get to the only” available salon chair and she otherwise would have had “to attend her daughter’s wedding with her hair unfinished[.]” The court disagreed, noting that she could have asked someone to sweep it off the floor or taken another route to the chair. Plaintiff also argued that the open and obvious doctrine did not apply because defendant violated Rule 73. While she cited Woodbury, the court noted that it “found no cases extending Woodbury’s holding to licensing regulations.” In fact, the court “has distinguished between violations of statutes and violations of codes and ordinances regarding the application of the” doctrine. It further determined that a private cause of action could not “be found in or inferred from the language of the Administrative Code or Rule 73 itself.” As a rule issued under the Occupational Code, a remedy for an alleged violation of Rule 73 “is established by MCL 339.501.” Thus, her exclusive remedy for the alleged violation was “to lodge a complaint with LARA.” Remanded for entry of summary disposition for defendant.