Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


THOMAS SNOVER and NANCY SNOVER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v MENARD, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED May 22, 2007

No. 270991 Bay Circuit Court LC No. 05-003151-NO

Before: White, P.J., and Saad and Murray, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals by leave granted from a circuit court order denying its motion for summary disposition in this premises liability action. We reverse. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Plaintiff Nancy Snover tripped over the edge of a merchandise display platform in defendant's store. The trial court ruled that the platform was open and obvious but there was an issue of fact whether the risk of harm it presented was open and obvious as well. The trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Kefgen v Davidson, 241 Mich App 611, 616; 617 NW2d 351 (2000).1 Premises liability rests on the duty an owner or occupier of land owes to those who enter to protect them from unreasonably dangerous conditions on the land. Merritt v Nickelson, 407 Mich 544, 552; 287 NW2d 178 (1980). This duty is not absolute. Douglas v Elba, Inc, 184 Mich App 160, 163; 457 NW2d 117 (1990). It does not extend to conditions from which an unreasonable risk of harm cannot be anticipated or to open and obvious dangers. Id.; Hammack v Lutheran Social Services of Michigan, 211 Mich App 1, 6; 535 NW2d 215 (1995). An open and obvious danger is one that is known to the invitee or is so obvious that the invitee might reasonably be expected to discover it, i.e., it is something that an average user with ordinary intelligence would be able to discover upon casual inspection. Riddle v McLouth Steel

1

Our review is also limited to the trial court record as it existed at the time the motion was decided. Pe

Download THOMAS SNOVER V MENARD INC.pdf

Michigan Law