Whether an action sounds in premises liability or ordinary negligence; Woodman v Kera, LLC; Jeffrey-Moise v Williamsburg Towne Houses Coop, Inc; Premises liability; Benton v Dart Props, Inc; Duty owed to an invitee; Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship; Duty owed to a licensee; Kelsey v Lint; Open & obvious danger; Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc; Special aspects; Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc; Possession & control; Merritt v Nickelson; Finazzo v Fire Equip Co

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-general contractor summary disposition of plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff was helping his friend, Swenson, during the construction of Swenson’s home. Defendant was the general contractor. Plaintiff was seriously injured when he fell through an opening in the garage floor and into the basement. He sued defendant alleging negligence. The trial court agreed with defendant that plaintiff’s claim sounded in premises liability and granted summary disposition for defendant. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the complaint sounded in ordinary negligence because it challenged defendant’s failure to ensure the safety of visitors to the home. It noted his assertion that his injuries were caused by defendant’s failure to act did not “transform this case into one of ordinary negligence.” Plaintiff’s injuries “resulted from his fall through the opening in the garage floor to the basement. An opening in the floor is a condition of the land.” As such, his complaint sounded “in premises liability because [his] injuries were caused by a condition on the land.” The court also rejected his claim that because defendant did not have possession and control over the home he could not invoke certain defenses that are available in premises-liability cases. “As general contractor, [defendant] was responsible to ensure the safety of others while on the premises.” Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s contention that he was an invitee, and that there were special aspects of the opening such that defendant had a duty to protect him. “Because invitee status is premised on whether the visitor was at the property for a commercial purpose, the trial court did not err in concluding there was no genuine issue of fact that” plaintiff was not an invitee the day of the fall. And because there was no genuine dispute of fact that plaintiff was not an invitee, the court declined to consider the question of special aspects. Affirmed.