Arias v. Talon Development Group, Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 April 2000
• Docket Number: Docket No. 211755.
• Citation: Arias v. Talon Development Group, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 484, 239 Mich. App. 265 (Mich. App. 2000)
• Parties: Elizabeth ARIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TALON DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

608 N.W.2d 484

239 Mich. App. 265

Elizabeth ARIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TALON DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 211755.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted December 15, 1999, at Grand Rapids.

Decided January 4, 2000, at 9:10 a.m.

Released for Publication April 4, 2000.

David A. Kallman, Lansing, for the plaintiff.

Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Hampton, Truex & Morley (by James R. Bradley), Lansing, for the defendant.

Before: FITZGERALD, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and MARKEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court's grant of summary disposition to defendant of her claim for negligence. We reverse.

Plaintiff slipped and fell on a handicap access ramp outside a credit union on property owned by defendant. Plaintiff claimed that the ramp had been freshly painted during the fifteen minutes that she was inside the credit union. Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that, even if it had been freshly painted, the access ramp was an open and obvious danger and therefore defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff. The circuit court granted defendant's motion.

We review a motion for summary disposition de novo. Spiek v. Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337, 572 N.W.2d 201 (1998). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for the plaintiff's claim. Id. Where the evidence proffered fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 120, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999).

In order to establish a negligence cause of action, a plaintiff must show "that the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff, that the defendant breached or violated the legal duty, that the plaintiff suffered damages, and that the breach was a proximate cause of the damages suffered." Schultz v. Consumers Power Co., 443 Mich. 445, 449, 506 N.W.2d 175 (1993); Richardson v. Michigan Humane Society, 221 Mich.App. 526, 528, 561 N.W.2d 873 (1997). To determine whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, courts examine a number of factors, including the relationship of the parties and the foreseeability and nature of the risk. Schultz, supra at 450, 506 N.W.2d 175. Regarding the duty owed to a business invitee, such as plaintiff, our Supreme Court has stated:

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 Products Corp., 440 Mich. 85, 93, 485 N.W.2d 676 (1992), quoting 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 343.]

In determining the duty owed a business invitee, the Court also stated, "where the dangers are known to the invitee or are so obvious that the invitee might reasonably be expected to discover them, an invitor owes no duty to protect or warn the invitee unless he should anticipate the harm despite knowledge of it on behalf of the invitee." Riddle, supra at 96, 485 N.W.2d 676.

This Court has also addressed the duty owed to a business invitee, noting that a landowner "has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition that the owner knows or should know the invitees will not discover or protect themselves against." Hughes v. PMG Building, Inc., 227 Mich.App. 1, 9, 574 N.W.2d 691 (1997). This Court further observed:

[E]ven if a danger is open and obvious, a possessor of land may still have a duty to protect invitees against foreseeably dangerous conditions.... [E]ven though there may not be an absolute obligation to provide a warning [of open and obvious dangers], this rule does not relieve the invitor from his duty to exercise reasonable care to protect his invitees against known or discoverable dangerous conditions. The rationale behind this rule is that liability for injuries incurred on defectively maintained premises should rest upon the party who is in control or possession of the premises, and, thus, is best able to prevent the injury. [ Id. at 10-11, 574 N.W.2d 691 (citations omitted).]

Once the existence of a duty toward the plaintiff is established, the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct is a question...