Mills v. White Castle System, Inc.
Decision Date | 19 April 1988 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 95232 |
Citation | 421 N.W.2d 631,167 Mich.App. 202 |
Parties | Deborah M. MILLS and Carolyn Ellis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Gary Houghton, Warren, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Zamplas, Paskin, Nagi, Baxter, Johnson & Walker, P.C. by Jeannette A. Paskin, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before J.H. GILLIS, P.J., and WEAVER and ALLEN, * JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition. MCR 2.116(C)(8). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that at 2 a.m. on August 17, 1985, plaintiffs and two companions parked their automobile in defendant's parking lot. Plaintiffs and their friends observed a group of seven or eight people standing outside of another vehicle. These people were drinking alcohol, using obscenities and "noticeably acting like disorderly persons." Plaintiffs and their companions ignored the group and entered the restaurant. Forty minutes later, plaintiffs and their friends left defendant's business and plaintiffs were attacked by the same group of unruly persons they had observed earlier. During the attack, one of plaintiffs' companions reentered defendant's establishment and asked the manager to call the police. The manager refused to call the police, refused to allow plaintiffs' friend to call the police and told plaintiffs' friend to go across the street and use a public telephone to summon the police. Defendant's restaurant was located at Eight Mile and Gratiot Roads. Plaintiffs further alleged that the delay in summoning the police allowed the unruly group to continue its attack and, in fact, to leave the area before the police arrived. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to maintain its premises in a safe and prudent manner because it allowed unruly patrons to congregate in its parking lot and, thereby, to attack plaintiffs and because it failed, refused or neglected to allow plaintiffs' friend to call the police so that they could aid plaintiffs.
Defendant moved for summary disposition, claiming that plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. Defendant read plaintiffs' complaint as alleging that it owed plaintiffs a duty to protect them from attack by unknown third persons or to intercede on their behalf when the attack occurred. Defendant claimed that plaintiffs were, in reality, alleging that it owed them a duty to provide police protection. Defendant alleged that it owed no such duty. Defendant further alleged that even if its employees had called the police there was no guarantee that the police would have responded.
The trial court granted defendant's motion, holding that defendant did not owe plaintiffs a duty to protect them from assaults by third persons.
A motion for summary disposition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, MCR 2.116(C)(8), is tested by the pleadings alone. Beaudin v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 157 Mich.App. 185, 187, 403 N.W.2d 76 (1986). Only the legal basis of the complaint is examined. Id. The factual allegations of the complaint are accepted as true, along with any inferences which may fairly be drawn therefrom. Id. Unless the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery, the motion should be denied. Id.
In Williams v. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc., 429 Mich. 495, 418 N.W.2d 381 (1988), plaintiff Willie Williams was shopping in the defendant's store, which was located in a high-crime area in Detroit. While the defendant generally had a plainclothes security guard on duty, the guard was ill on that day and the defendant was robbed. The plaintiff was injured when he inadvertently ran out behind the robber in the ensuing panic and was shot. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had breached its duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its patrons by failing to provide armed, visible security guards and by failing to intercede on the plaintiff's behalf after learning that a robbery was in progress.
Our Supreme Court noted:
Id., at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krass v. Tri-County Sec., Inc.
...in a position to control Georges' [the assailant's] actions or to eject him from the parking lot. See Mills v. White Castle System, Inc., 167 Mich.App. 202, 203-204, 421 N.W.2d 631 (1988), lv den. 431 Mich. 880, 430 N.W.2d 150 (1988). Nor is this a case where defendant Jabar failed to utili......
-
Bailey v. Schaaf
...defendant failed to notify the police when it knew or should have known that its patrons were in peril); Mills v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 167 Mich.App. 202, 421 N.W.2d 631 (1988) (reversing grant of summary disposition in the defendant's favor when the defendant-merchant was informed of on......
-
Bailey v. Schaaf
...the first instance to protect its invitees against any crime that may occur in the community. See also Mills v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 167 Mich.App. 202, 208, 421 N.W.2d 631 (1988) (holding that Williams 's policy rationale did not preclude the plaintiff's negligence claim because the pla......
-
Law Offices of Lawrence J. Stockler, P.C. v. Rose
... ... See generally Basic Food Industries, Inc. v. Grant, 107 Mich.App. 685, 310 N.W.2d 26 (1981), lv ... were not a proximate cause of David Rose's injury, Mills v. White Castle System, Inc., 167 Mich.App. 202, 209, 421 ... ...