Trip & fall; Whether a negligence claim sounded in premises liability or ordinary negligence; Finazzo v Fire Equip Co; Compau v Pioneer Res Co, LLC; Whether a construction barricade was an open & obvious danger; Nuisance claim; Fuga v Comerica Bank–Detroit; Private nuisance; Adkins v Thomas Solvent Co; Public nuisance; Cloverleaf Car Co v Phillips Petroleum Co

Concluding that plaintiff’s negligence claim sounded in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence, the court held that the danger posed by defendant-Consumers Energy’s construction barricade on a sidewalk was open and obvious. Further, her nuisance claim was a restatement of her premises liability claim, and even if it was not, she did not establish a question of fact as to either a private or a public nuisance. Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition of both claims and remanded for entry of an order granting Consumers summary disposition. While plaintiff labeled her first claim against Consumers as an ordinary negligence claim, she “asserted that she ‘tripped on the obscured barricade support and fell, suffering injury.’ Thus, much like the claims set forth in Finazzo and Compau, plaintiff’s injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land.” The dispositive issue as to the premises liability claim was whether the hazard was open and obvious. The court found no genuine issue of material fact that it was. “Plaintiff testified that she tripped on the leg of the barricade shortly before 12:30 p.m. on a clear day. The barricade consisted of three horizontal slats fastened to two vertical metal rods. The vertical metal rods were fastened to metal legs that ran perpendicular to the horizontal slats and prevented the barricade from falling over. Plaintiff acknowledged that the legs of the barricade were not concealed, and she did not recall seeing any shadows that obscured” them before she tripped and fell. Photos showed “a typical construction barricade situated on a narrow portion of the sidewalk where the concrete had been removed and replaced with gravel. The barricade sat parallel to a building that ran along the edge of the sidewalk. Given these conditions, an average person of ordinary intelligence would have known that the typical barricade rested on perpendicular legs protruding from its base. Thus, an average person of ordinary intelligence would have foreseen the danger posed by” the legs. She did not argue special aspects made the barricade unreasonably dangerous, and the barricade leg “was not effectively unavoidable and . . . did not present an unreasonable risk of severe harm.”