Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


RICHARD GALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD, Intervening Plaintiff, v RD BLOOMFIELD ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a BLOOMFIELD TOWN SQUARE MALL and RIS CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED April 15, 1997

No. 191647 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 95-492345-NO

Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Fitzgerald and Smolenski, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals the trial court's order granting summary disposition to defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). We reverse. This case arises out of an injury suffered by plaintiff when he slipped and fell on a patch of ice on a sidewalk located on defendant Bloomfield's mall premises. Plaintiff had gone to the mall to pick up mail from a United States Post Office, which leased space in the mall from defendant Bloomfield. Defendant RIS had previously contracted with defendant Bloomfield to provide snow plowing and salting services at the mall. The terms of the contract stated that said plowing and salting were conditional upon a snowfall in excess of 1.5 inches within a twelve-hour period. Plaintiff initiated the present action, claiming that defendants had negligently breached their duty of care to him. Defendant Bloomfield moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), claiming that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that it exercised anything other than ordinary

-1

care and prudence, that it did not know, nor had reason to know, of the ice patch located on the sidewalk outside of the post office, and that plaintiff's claim was barred due to the natural accumulation doctrine. Defendant RIS joined defendant Bloomfield's motion, adding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that its actions were negligent. T he trial court granted defendants' motions for summary disposition, stating that the natural accumulation doctrine precluded plaintiff's claim. The court failed to rule on the other issues raised. Plaintiff first argues that because the sidewalk upon which he fell was on privately owned property, the trial court erred in dismissing his claim based upon the natural accumulation doctrine. We agree. Neither party disputes that plaintiff was an invitee on defendant Bloomfield's premises. As explained in Morrow v Boldt , 203 Mich App 324; 512 NW2d 83 (1994): The natural accumulation doctrine provides that neither a municipality nor a landowner has an obligation to a licensee to remove the natural accumulation of ice or snow from any location, except where the municipality or property owner, by taking affirmative action, has increased the travel hazard to the public. . . . The natural accumulation doctrine does not apply to situations involving an invitee injured on private property. A landowner's obligation to an invitee is to take reasonable measures within a reasonable time after the accumulation of snow to diminish the hazard of injury. . . . However, a landowner has no duty even to an invitee to clear natural accumulations of ice or snow from public sidewalks abutting his property. . . . A panel of this Court has extended that rule to driveway approaches as well. . . . [Id. at 327-328 (citations omitted).] In this case, it appears from the record that the sidewalk on which plaintiff slipped and fell was located on private, commercial property. Consequently, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim based on the rule pertaining to invitees and the natural accumulation of ice and snow on public sidewalks. Next, plaintiff argues that whether defendant Bloomfield knew or should have known of the existence of the icy condition outside of its single-door exit was a question of fact precluding summary disposition. We agree. Our Supreme Court has adopted the definition provided in the Restatement of the general legal duty that a premises owner owes an invitee: A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. [Riddle v McLouth Steel -2

Products Corp, 440 Mich 85, 93; 485 NW2d 676 (1992) (quoting 2 Restatement Torts, 2d,

Download RICHARD GALE V RD BLOOMFIELD ASSOC LTD.pdf

Michigan Law