Eason v. Coggins Memorial Christian Methodist Episcopal Church

• Decision Date: 21 April 1995
• Docket Number: Docket No. 166310
• Citation: Eason v. Coggins Memorial Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 532 N.W.2d 882, 210 Mich.App. 261 (Mich. App. 1995)
• Parties: Bertha W. EASON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Frank C. Eason, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COGGINS MEMORIAL CHRISTIAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 882

532 N.W.2d 882

210 Mich.App. 261

Bertha W. EASON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Frank C. Eason, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COGGINS MEMORIAL CHRISTIAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 166310.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 3, 1995, at Detroit.

Decided April 21, 1995, at 11:40 a.m.

Released for Publication June 19, 1995.

Mancini, Schreuder, Kline & Conrad, P.C. by Ellen G. Schreuder, Warren, for plaintiff.

Ecclestone, Moffett & Humphrey, P.C. by Stephen T. Moffett and John M. McManus, Southfield, for the defendant.

Before JANSEN, P.J., and MICHAEL J. KELLY and HOOD, JJ.

MICHAEL J. KELLY, J.

This is a premises liability case. Plaintiff appeals as of right an order of the circuit court granting defendant's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). We reverse.

Plaintiff's decedent, Frank Eason, agreed to assist defendant in the repair and maintenance of its building. While making repairs, Eason fell from a ladder and scaffolding set up by defendant's agents and suffered fatal injury.

Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against defendant alleging that the ladder and scaffolding were inadequately structured and that defendant should have expected that Eason would not discover the dangerous condition. At the hearing regarding defendant's motion for summary disposition, plaintiff more specifically argued that the ladder was missing a safety latch. Relying on Muscat v. Khalil, 150 Mich.App. 114, 388 N.W.2d 267 (1986), the trial court found the danger to be open and obvious. Accordingly, the court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) on the basis that defendant was not under a duty to warn its invitees of open and obvious dangers.

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone. Feister v. Bosack, 198 Mich.App. 19, 21, 497 N.W.2d 522 (1993). This Court reviews a trial court's decision under MCR 2.116(C)(8) de novo and determines "if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery." Duran v. Detroit News, Inc., 200 Mich.App. 622, 628, 504 N.W.2d 715 (1993). All factual allegations supporting the claim are accepted as true, as well as any reasonable inferences or conclusions that can be drawn from the facts. Feister, supra at 21-22, 497 N.W.2d 522. However, mere conclusions, unsupported by allegations of fact, will not suffice to state a cause of action. Roberts v. Pinkins, 171 Mich.App. 648, 651, 430 N.W.2d 808 (1988). In a negligence action, summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(8) if it is determined as a matter of law that the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff under the alleged facts. Schneider v. Nectarine Ballroom, Inc. (On Remand), 204 Mich.App. 1, 4, 514 N.W.2d 486 (1994).

The parties agree that Eason was an invitee on defendant's property. An invitee is a person who enters the land of another on an invitation that carries with it an implication that reasonable care has been used to prepare the premises and make them safe. Wymer v. Holmes, 429 Mich. 66, 71, n. 1, 412 N.W.2d 213 (1987). An invitor must warn of hidden defects; there is no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers unless the invitor anticipates harm to the invitee despite the invitee's knowledge of the defect. Riddle v. McLouth Steel Products Corp., 440 Mich. 85, 91-95, 485 N.W.2d 676 (1992). Whether a danger is open and obvious depends upon whether it is reasonable to expect an average user with ordinary intelligence to discover the danger upon casual inspection. Novotney v. Burger King Corp. (On Remand), 198 Mich.App. 470, 474-475, 499 N.W.2d 379 (1993). The care required extends to instrumentalities on the premises that the invitee uses at the invitation of the premises owner. Muylaert v. Erickson, 16 Mich.App. 167, 168, 167 N.W.2d 823 (1969).

In Muscat, supra, a negligent entrustment case, this Court held:

An extension ladder is an essentially uncomplicated instrument which gains a propensity for danger only because it will allow the user to reach great heights. This danger is most obvious to all but children of tender years whose intellectual capacity does not permit them to reason to such conclusions. [Id. at 122, 388 N.W.2d 267.]

In Muscat, the plaintiff, a painter, was injured while painting the house of the defendant, a neighbor. During the course of his work, the plaintiff approached the defendant with a request for a taller ladder. The defendant told the plaintiff that a ladder was available at the family business. The plaintiff obtained the ladder from the business premises himself. Back at the defendant's house, the plaintiff climbed the ladder while his assistant held it at the bottom. At one point, the assistant left his position. When the plaintiff proceeded to climb the ladder, the base of the ladder slipped, at which point it began to "telescope" down, causing injury to the plaintiff. Id. at 117, 388 N.W.2d 267.

The Muscat Court concluded that the obviousness of the dangers posed by extension ladders precluded a suit for negligent entrustment. Defendant relies heavily on Muscat in arguing that summary disposition was proper. However, we believe that Muscat is distinguishable on three grounds.

First, Muscat addressed the dangers generally posed by an extension ladder. Here, plaintiff alleges a specific defect in the ladder, a missing or malfunctioning safety latch. The real inquiry is whether this defect must be deemed an open and obvious danger. We think not. The danger that an extension...