Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


DUANE SLATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v MARVIN BRANDLE, BRANDLE INVESTMENTS, LLC, and BRANDLE CORPORATION, INC, a/k/a BRANDLE REAL ESTATE, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED June 23, 2005

No. 260867 Saginaw Circuit Court LC No. 03-048980-NO

Before: O'Connell, P.J., and Schuette and Borrello, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this case involving a slip and fall accident, plaintiff appeals by right an order granting summary disposition to defendants. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). I. FACTS Plaintiff's slip and fall occurred outside an office, or "depot" that was located in a mall in Bridgeport. The mall was owned by defendants who leased the office to plaintiff's employer, GTech. Plaintiff was employed by GTech as a customer service representative. His duties included servicing Lottery and other equipment, and training customers. In the course of providing service support to customers, he and other service technicians routinely traveled to the office to obtain supplies. Plaintiff also used equipment located in the office. The lone entrance to the office was located at the back of the shopping center.1 In the early morning of January 9, 2002, in response to a service page, plaintiff went to the office to obtain supplies. According to plaintiff, the area was unlit and dark, but not "pitch

1

A second garage door also allowed entrance to the office but could only be unlocked from the inside of the building.

-1-


black." Plaintiff parked near the entrance but did not leave his automobile running or his lights on. There was no snow on the ground. Plaintiff looked for ice on the ground and on the wall of the building, where it would normally be seen, but he did not see any. He approached the door, placed his key in the door and tried to open it, but could not do so.2 Thinking that a box had fallen behind the door, he shoved the door with his left shoulder. The door flew open, his feet "went the opposite way," and plaintiff fell. He continued to hold onto the door handle as he fell, and injured his left shoulder. Once he entered the building, plaintiff turned on the light and was able to observe a thin sheet of ice outside the door. He threw salt on the icy area. His subsequent inspection also revealed that a line of ice had formed on the inside of the doorjamb. An ineffective drainage system on the roof of the building caused water to collect around the doorframe and puddle on the ground. On occasion, the lock would freeze. Under the terms of the lease, defendants were obligated to maintain and repair the exterior portions of the building. GTech employees, including plaintiff, had complained to defendants about the drainage problem, and several unsuccessful attempts had been made to fix the problem. Defendants' attempt to repair the leaking gutter seam was likewise unsuccessful. Plaintiff and other employees were aware of the possibility of icing in front of the door and the nearby garagestyle door, and GTech provided salt and other tools to remove ice, which were kept inside the office. Plaintiff filed suit alleging negligence and public nuisance. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, finding that the dangerous condition involved was open and obvious and did not present any "special aspects" to allow recovery under a negligence theory. The trial court further held that plaintiff's public nuisance claim was inappropriate because the office was not open to use by the public. The trial court refused to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint to add a claim for damages as a third

Download DUANE SLATER V MARVIN BRANDLE.pdf

Michigan Law