Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Michigan » Court of Appeals » 1997 » LARRY FRANKS V KASLE STEEL CORP
LARRY FRANKS V KASLE STEEL CORP
State: Michigan
Court: Court of Appeals
Docket No: 194934
Case Date: 05/30/1997
Preview:STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


DARLENE FRANKS, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Larry Franks, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v KASLE STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED May 30, 1997

No. 194934 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 95-510536-NI

Before: McDonald, P.J., and Reilly and O'Connell, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Darlene Franks appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant, Kasle Steel Corporation pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We reverse in part and remand. On appeal, plaintiff argues that summary disposition was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether defendant was negligent. A trial court's determination of a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Pinckney Community Schools v Continental Casualty Co, 213 Mich App 521, 525; 540 NW2d 748 (1995). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) may be granted when, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Before summary disposition may be granted, the trial court must be satisfied that, because of some deficiency that cannot be overcome, it is impossible for the claim to be supported at trial. SSC Associates v General Retirement System , 192 Mich App 360, 365; 480 NW2d 275 (1991). Plaintiff ' s specific contention on appeal is that the trial court erred when it ruled, as a matter of law, that defendant exercised reasonable care in maintaining its unloading area. We agree. In Michigan, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to invitees by a condition on his land if (1) the possessor knows or by reasonable care would discover the condition and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, (2) the possessor should expect that the invitees will not discover or realize the danger, or that they will fail to protect themselves against it, and (3) the

-1

possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitees against the danger. See Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 609; 537 NW2d 185 (1995), quoting 2 Restatement Torts, 2d,
Download LARRY FRANKS V KASLE STEEL CORP.pdf

Michigan Law

Michigan State Laws
Michigan Court
Michigan Tax
Michigan Labor Laws
Michigan State
    > Michigan Counties
    > Michigan Zip Codes
Michigan Agencies

Comments

Tips