Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


RICHARD D. LaRUE and CATHY LaRUE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v

UNPUBLISHED October 29, 1999

No. 211741 Saginaw Circuit Court LC No. 96-013353 NO

RICHARD E. JACOBS GROUP, d/b/a FASHION SQUARE MALL, Defendant-Appellee, and DOC HEINZ CONTRACTING, INC., Defendant.

Before: O'Connell, P.J. and Talbot and Zahra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the trial court order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in favor of defendant Richard E. Jacobs Group, doing business as Fashion Square Mall, in this premises liability action. We affirm. We review the trial court's decision whether to grant the motion for summary disposition de novo to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists that would prevent entering judgment for the moving party as a matter of law. Morales v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 458 Mich 288, 294; 582 NW2d 776 (1998). In making this determination, we view the documentary evidence in a light favoring the nonmoving party. Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 374; 501 NW2d 155 (1993). Plaintiffs argue that the pile of snow over which plaintiff Richard LaRue1 walked to get to defendant's shopping mall, and on which he slipped and fell, presented an unreasonable risk of harm despite its open and obvious nature. The trial court disagreed, and granted defendant's motion for summary disposition.2 -1

The parties do not dispute that plaintiff was an invitee on defendant's premises.3 An invitor owes a duty "`to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land' that the [invitor] knows or should know the invitees will not discover, realize, or protect themselves against." Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 609; 537 NW2d 185 (1995), quoting Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc, 429 Mich 495, 499; 418 NW2d 381 (1988). See also 2 Restatement Torts 2d,

Download RICHARD D LARUE V RICHARD E JACOBS GROUP.pdf

Michigan Law