Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


ROBERT NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v LINDA BALL, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED February 22, 2000

No. 210859 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 96-517162-NO

Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Kelly, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this slip and fall case, plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm. On appeal, an order granting or denying summary disposition is reviewed de novo. In reviewing a motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a trial court considers affidavits, admissions, and documentary evidence filed in the action or submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A trial court may grant a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if the evidence shows that there is no genuine issue in respect to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 454-455; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). The trial court ruled that defendant owed no duty to plaintiff to remove or warn him of the naturally accumulated ice and snow on the concrete stones alongside the walk outside defendant's residence. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary disposition because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant breached the duty owed by her to plaintiff. The parties agree that plaintiff had the status of a licensee. We conclude that, under the current state of the law, the "natural accumulation doctrine" does not bar plaintiff's claim. Nonetheless, we affirm because the trial court reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason. See Yerkovich v AAA, 231 Mich App 54, 68; 585 NW2d 318 (1998), lv gtd 461 Mich 873 (1999). Assuming for the purposes of this opinion that defendant was in possession of the

-1

area on which plaintiff slipped and fell, defendant was still entitled to summary disposition of plaintiff's claim.1 This Court recently clarified the proper scope of the natural accumulation doctrine. The natural accumulation doctrine was meant to shield possessors from liability with regard to the natural accumulation of snow and ice on public sidewalks which abutted private property, not with regard to injuries that occurred on private property. Altairi v Alhaj , 235 Mich App 626, 630-638; 599 NW2d 537 (1999). The Altairi Court explained, "Ordinarily, a possessor owes at least a marginal duty of care to his licensees." Id. at 634, citing Preston v Sleziak , 383 Mich 442, 453; 175 NW2d 759 (1970). In Preston, the Supreme Court adopted 2 Restatement Torts, 2d,

Download ROBERT NICHOLS V LINDA BALL.pdf

Michigan Law