Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

JACQUELINE BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v BRUCE CAMPBELL DODGE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED September 23, 2010

No. 293039 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 08-116907-NO

Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and JANSEN and BANDSTRA, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals by leave granted the circuit court's order denying its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10)1 in this slip and fall action. We reverse. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Plaintiff sustained injuries after she slipped and fell in a puddle of water while getting out of her SUV in the service area of defendant's automobile dealership. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary disposition because there is no genuine issue of material fact that (1) the puddle of water was open and obvious and (2) no special aspects existed to render the condition unreasonably dangerous. We agree with both contentions. This Court reviews decisions on motions for summary disposition de novo. Latham v Barton Malow Co, 480 Mich 105, 111; 746 NW2d 868 (2008). Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rose v Nat'l Auction Group, Inc, 466 Mich 453, 461; 646 NW2d 455 (2002). In reviewing the trial court's decision, "we consider the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Id.

1

Although defendant moved for summary disposition under both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), defendant challenges on appeal the circuit court's denial of summary disposition under subrule (C)(10) only.

-1-

Generally, a premises possessor owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect an invitee from a dangerous condition on its land that poses an unreasonable risk of harm. Lugo v Ameritech Corp, 464 Mich 512, 516; 629 NW2d 384 (2001). Under the open and obvious doctrine, however, where the invitee knows of the danger or where it is so obvious that a reasonable invitee should discover it, a premises owner owes no duty to protect the invitee unless harm should be anticipated despite the invitee's awareness of the condition. Id.; Riddle v McLouth Steel Prods Corp, 440 Mich 85, 96; 485 NW2d 676 (1992). A danger is open and obvious if "it is reasonable to expect an average user with ordinary intelligence to discover [it] upon casual inspection." Eason v Coggins Mem Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 210 Mich App 261, 264; 532 NW2d 882 (1995); Novotney v Burger King Corp (On Remand), 198 Mich App 470, 474-475; 499 NW2d 379 (1993). In Lugo, 464 Mich at 518, the Michigan Supreme Court characterized standing water as presenting such a clear open and obvious risk that the Court did not discuss its reasoning for such a conclusion. The alleged dangerous condition here, a puddle in the service area of defendant's automobile dealership, presents a similarly clear-cut case. First, the presence of a liquid puddle in the service area at a car dealership is neither unusual nor unforeseeable. Second, if casual inspection is to mean anything, it must at a minimum mean looking at one's surroundings, even if momentarily. Plaintiff concedes that she did not look at the floor when she stepped down from her SUV, meaning that she did not inspect at all. A reasonably prudent person would have looked before stepping out of the vehicle, and considering the size of the puddle

Download JACQUELINE BROOKS V BRUCE CAMPBELL DODGE INC.pdf

Michigan Law