Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs.

• Decision Date: 29 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 296535; 300163,296535; 300163
• Parties: MARY BUHALIS, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. TRINITY CONTINUING CARE SERVICES, a/k/a SANCTUARY AT THE ABBEY, f/k/a ABBEY MERCY LIVING CENTER, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

MARY BUHALIS, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
TRINITY CONTINUING CARE SERVICES, a/k/a SANCTUARY AT THE ABBEY,
f/k/a ABBEY MERCY LIVING CENTER, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

No. 296535; 300163

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

May 29, 2012

FOR PUBLICATION 9:10 a.m.
Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 2009-000633-NO

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and SAAD and O'CONNELL, JJ.

SAAD, J.

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

Under Michigan law, a premises possessor generally owes no duty to an invitee to warn of or protect from open and obvious dangers, such as ice and snow, absent special aspects. We hold that, for the reasons set forth below, the icy condition that plaintiff encountered was open and obvious. We also hold that, as a matter of law, if a premises possessor provides a clear means of ingress and egress and the invitee strays off the normal pathway onto an area that is obviously not reserved for that purpose, the landowner has not breached its duty of "reasonable care." Because the pathway for normal access is made available to invitees and the dangers of straying off the clear path are, as here, open and obvious, the premise possessor owes no duty to warn or protect such an invitee.

II. FACTS

In January 2008, plaintiff, Mary Buhalis, slipped and fell on ice on a patio near the front entrance of a building owned by defendant Trinity Continuing Care Services (Trinity). On the morning of the incident, Ms. Buhalis rode a large, three-wheeled bike to the nursing home to donate a bag of clothes. She parked her bike on the uncleared and unsalted patio adjacent to the main entrance walkway. The main walkway was free of ice and snow and covered by a large awning. After she dismounted her bike, Ms. Buhalis retrieved the bag of clothes from her basket and set it on the ground. She then picked up the bag and, as she started to walk toward the building, she slipped and fell. Ms. Buhalis offered conflicting testimony about the precise location of her fall, but receptionist Marlene Calcaterra testified that she saw Ms. Buhalis

Page 2

attempting to pull herself up right outside of her window, which is directly in front of the patio. At oral argument on appeal, plaintiff's counsel agreed that Ms. Buhalis fell on the patio and not on the cleared walkway leading to the building.

Joshua Shock, the maintenance technician for the nursing home, testified that part of his job is to remove snow and place salt on the walkways and entrance areas of the building. Mr. Shock testified that the sidewalks and main entrance walkway were clear of ice and snow when Ms. Buhalis fell. He further testified that he never salted or removed ice from the patios and they were generally not maintained during the winter months. According to Mr. Shock, the large awning over the main walkway "performed as designed, in directing rain and melting snow and ice away from the covered walkway and entrance to the building, and onto the uncovered cement patio areas adjacent to each side of the awning." Mr. Shock recalled that, on the day Ms. Buhalis fell, there was visible ice on the patio in the area where plaintiff slipped. According to Ms. Buhalis, she was aware that ice and snow could accumulate on the patio, that the awning caused water to fall onto the patio where it could freeze and thaw, and she was also aware that Trinity had posted a sign that cautioned: "SIDEWALKS, PARKING LOTS AND COMMON AREAS MAY BE WET, SNOWCOVERED [SIC] AND SLIPPERY," but Ms. Buhalis maintained that she did not see any ice on the patio before she slipped. However, Ms. Buhalis recalled that, after she fell, she saw that she slipped on a patch of ice.

Ms. Buhalis sued Trinity, alleging various claims of liability. In Docket No. 296535, Trinity appeals by leave granted¹ the trial court's order that denied its second motion for summary disposition. Ms. Buhalis also filed a cross-appeal in Docket No. 296535. In Docket No. 300163, Trinity appeals by leave granted² the trial court's order that denied its third motion for summary disposition. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for entry of summary disposition for Trinity in Docket Nos. 296535 and 300163.

III. ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE

We agree with Trinity that the trial court erred when it denied its motion for summary disposition on Ms. Buhalis's first amended complaint, in which she asserted that Trinity should be held liable for ordinary negligence. This Court reviews de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Ligon v Detroit, 276 Mich App 120, 124; 739 NW2d 900 (2007).

Courts are not bound by the labels that parties attach to their claims. Manning v Amerman, 229 Mich App 608, 613; 582 NW2d 539 (1998). Indeed, "[i]t is well settled that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond

Page 3

mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim." Adams v Adams (On Reconsideration), 276 Mich App 704, 710-711; 742 NW2d 399 (2007). Michigan law distinguishes between claims arising from ordinary negligence and claims premised on a condition of the land. See James v Alberts, 464 Mich 12, 18-19; 626 NW2d 158 (2001). In the latter case, liability arises solely from the defendant's duty as an owner, possessor, or occupier of land. See Laier v Kitchen, 266 Mich App 482, 493; 702 NW2d 199 (2005). If the plaintiff's injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, the action sounds in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence; this is true even when the plaintiff alleges that the premises possessor created the condition giving rise to the plaintiff's injury. James, 464 Mich at 18-19.

Here, Ms. Buhalis alleged that she was injured when she slipped on ice and fell; that is, she alleged that she was injured when she encountered a dangerous condition on Trinity's premises. Though she asserted that Trinity's employees caused the dangerous condition at issue, this allegation does not transform the claim into one for ordinary negligence. Id. Rather, she clearly pleaded a claim founded on premises liability. Therefore, Buhalis's negligence claim is a common law premises liability claim and, to the extent that she purported to allege an ordinary negligence claim in addition to her premises liability claim, the trial court should have dismissed that claim.

IV. OPEN AND OBVIOUS DANGER AND DUTY OF REASONABLE CARE

On cross-appeal in Docket No. 296535, Ms. Buhalis argues that the trial court erred by granting Trinity's first motion for summary disposition regarding plaintiff's premises liability claim³ because Ms. Buhalis contends the ice on which she fell was not open and obvious.

"In a premises liability action, a plaintiff must prove the elements of negligence: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages." Benton v Dart Properties, Inc, 270 Mich App 437, 440; 715 NW2d...