Michigan Premises Liability

"Why were you on the property," is most likely the first question an attorney will ask you when you are asking about suing a property owner in Michigan for injury caused while on their property.

In Michigan premises liability law, there are three different possible kinds of statuses one can fall under when on someone's property:

1. An "Invitee" or someone who is on the property who will give the possessor of the property some sort of commercial, business, monetary or some tangible benefit. A customer of a store or restaurant or other business would be considered an invitee if the business is open to the general public or if the person is an invited customer or client in the case of a private business.
   
   Invitees are given the most protection against harm or injury by Michigan premises liability law. The possessor must provide the invitee with the following:
1. Inspection of the property for potential harm or injury,
2. Maintain the property to prevent potential harm or injury, and
3. Warn invitees of potential harmful situation on the property.
   
2. A "Licensee" is someone who was invited to the property for social reasons. The obligations of a property owner are somewhat less to a licensee than to an invitee, but the possessor still has the following obligations and duties if injury or harm results, if all of he following conditions exist:
1. The possessor of the property should have known about the danger that was imposed,
2. The possessor of the property did not take reasonable care in fixing a potentially hazardous situation,
3. The possessor had reason to believe that the licensee would not have discovered the hazard on his or her own, and 
4. The licensee did not know about the risk and the danger it imposed.
   
3. The third status is that of "Trespasser," or someone who is on the land without permission. Trespassers are accorded the least protection under Michigan premises liability law. They can only sue if the property possessor commits a willful or wanton act leading to harm or injury on the part of the trespasser. For instance, a possessor of a property cannot attack a trespasser for simply intruding on the property.

Let's compare some scenarios in the case of licensees. If a licensee visits the property and is not told of a weak step leading to a porch that looks in shape, but is weak enough to potentially cause a hazard, the the possessor has a legal obligation, according to Michigan premises liability law to warn the licensee or social guest of that step. If the porch step was in an obvious condition of disrepair and dangerous and the licensee still decided to enter the porch, then the possessor of the property would not be liable under Michigan premises liability law.

In the case of the same faulty porch step, if the possessor went about fixing the porch step using reasonable means to fix it and test it afterward, and believed the step to be safe afterwards, then the property possessor would have a case against the licensee in the case of a Michigan premises liability court case.

Get in contact with Legal Genius if you were injured or otherwise harmed on someone's property to find out if you have a case.

The Open and Obvious Doctrine

Since the 2001 Michigan Supreme Court of LUGO v. AMERITECH CORPORATION INC, attorneys for the defense in Michigan premises liability suits have been citing the  "open and obvious" doctrine as first line of attack against the plaintiff's case. 

The case involved the plaintiff walking through the parking lot of the possessor and encountering a pothole. The plaintiff was walking through the defendant's parking lot on her way to pay a phone bill,when she apparently tripped and fell as she was passing over the pothole. She had told the court that she was not looking at the ground at the time, but was instead looking at a truck in the parking lot. She testified that nothing could have prevented her from seeing the pothole. 

The Court of Appeals had reversed the summary disposition in favor of the defendant, rejecting the defendant's claim that they were protected by the "open and obvious danger" doctrine. Then the Michigan Supreme court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and thus strengthened the "open and obvious danger" doctrine in Michigan case law.

If you suffered an injury where the property possessor claims that the danger should had been obvious to you and was openly in view, contact Legal Genius for advice. They can assess the situation and the strength of your case.

Ice and Snow

In Michigan, being in a cold climate, there is potential for another hazard from late fall through early spring - ice and snow. These conditions present the Michigan courts with a special challenge in premises liability law. In a recent Michigan Supreme Court decision, it was decided that the "open and obvious danger" doctrine should hold up in the case of ice and snow.

The 2012  Hoffner v Lanctoe case involved a woman who was a member of a health club owned by the defendants Richard and Lori Lanctoe. The plaintiff in the premises liability case, Charlotte Hoffner had slipped and fell outside the entrance of the Lanctoe's club Fitness Xpress in in Ironwood, Michigan. The defendants argued that the ice hazard was open and obvious and that the defendant could have chose not to enter the club. The defendant argued that she had a contractual right to enter the building as a paid member.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, citing the "open and obvious" doctrine, and reversing the Court of Appeals decision. The Court of Appeals had upheld the trial court's decision that the sidewalk was effectively unavoidable, because there was no other way to enter the building. The Court of Appeals, however did dismiss the health club and its operator from the case,because they ruled that they, "did not have possession and control of the sidewalk where the slip and fall took place."

Navigating the Michigan Courts

Navigating the courts when it comes to Michigan premises liability cases can be tricky, and if you have been injured or harmed on someone's property, you need to consult a lawyer with the knowledge and success record to qualify to assess and litigate such cases. Legal Genius is here to answer your questions and evaluate your case.