Trip in a pothole in an unlit parking lot; Premises liability; Consideration of whether a defect was open & obvious in defining the duty owed to an invitee; Riddle v McLouth Steel Prods Corp; Effect of poor or nonexistent lighting; Distinguishing Blackwell v Franchi & Abke v Vandenberg

Concluding that plaintiff knew about the lack of lighting in the parking lot and the lot’s “state of disrepair[,]” the court found Blackwell and Abke distinguishable, and affirmed summary disposition for defendants-property owners. Plaintiff operated a business in defendants’ building and had been doing so for three to four years before the incident giving rise to this case. Given the absence of functioning lighting in the lot, it was unlit when she arrived early each morning. One morning, she found someone had parked in her usual spot, so she parked a space over. Exiting her vehicle, she stepped into a “pothole and tripped, falling and allegedly sustaining multiple injuries.” The court noted that ordinary parking lot potholes “are considered ‘typical open and obvious dangers.’” However, it has acknowledged that such a “danger can become a hidden danger in poor or nonexistent lighting,” giving rise to a fact question for a jury. In this case, plaintiff “knew that the parking lot was in serious disrepair and had numerous potholes. She also knew that it was dark outside and that she was not parking her vehicle in the usual parking spot. Accordingly, the parking lot in general presented a hazard under circumstances of which plaintiff was fully aware. In other words, she had to have known that there was a possibility that there was a pothole or deteriorated pavement where she stepped when exiting her vehicle in the darkness at an unfamiliar spot. This is a case that is more accurately characterized as one in which no duty arose because plaintiff actually knew of the potential danger.” This was precisely how the trial court analyzed it. Given that plaintiff spent a great deal more time at the property than defendants, she certainly “knew of the lack of lighting and the parking lot’s state of disrepair.” The court found Blackwell distinguishable, noting there was no indication the plaintiff in that case “was previously familiar with the mudroom or that she had any knowledge that she was walking into an unlit room until it was too late.” Likewise, in Abke there was no indication the plaintiff “was previously familiar with the area of the accident and its darkened state.”