Davidson v. Steve's Family Dining II, Inc.

• Docket Number: 361730
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: ARLENE D. DAVIDSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVE'S FAMILY DINING II, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

1

ARLENE D. DAVIDSON, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEVE'S FAMILY DINING II, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 361730

Court of Appeals of Michigan

December 28, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 21-005288-NO

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and MURRAY and SWARTZLE, JJ.

ON REMAND

PER CURIAM

In our prior opinion in this premises liability case, we addressed the propriety of the trial court's order denying defendant's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the wet floor had special aspects that made it an effectively unavoidable hazard. We agreed with that argument, and therefore reversed the trial court's order and remanded for entry of an order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. After release of Kandil-Elsayed v. F &E Oil, Inc,___ Mich___,___;___ N.W.2d___(2023) (Docket Nos. 162907 and 163430), the Supreme Court remanded this matter back to us to reconsider plaintiff's appeal in light of Kandil-Elsayed. We now vacate the trial court's order denying defendant's motion for summary disposition and remand the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings under the standards outlined in Kandil-Elsayed.

Prior to Kandil-Elsayed, the open and obvious danger doctrine governed the duty element of a premises-liability claim. Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450, 476; 821 N.W.2d 88 (2012). Generally, it was held that "a premises possessor owes a duty to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition on the land." Lugo v. Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich. 512, 516; 629 N.W.2d 384 (2001). In Kandil-Elsayed, the Court overruled Lugo and held that "the open and obvious nature of a danger" is only "relevant to the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's comparative fault." Kandil-Elsayed,___ Mich. at___; slip op at 39-40. Kandil-Elsayed further clarified that "the three traditional status-

2

based categories" for determining the duty a possessor of land owes to a person on the land- licensee, invitee, and trespasser-remained unchanged. Id. at___; slip op at 39.

There is no dispute that Kandil-Elsayed changed the legal landscape for premises liability cases. The governing law for these claims at the time the trial court decided defendant's motion has...