Mouzon v. Achievable Visions, Docket No. 312219.
| Decision Date | 09 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 312219. |
| Citation | 864 N.W.2d 606,308 Mich.App. 415 |
| Parties | MOUZON v. ACHIEVABLE VISIONS. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Arnold E. Reed and Associates (by Arnold E. Reed ), for Alwyn Mouzon.
Ward Anderson Porritt & Bryant (by Michael D. Bryant, Bloomfield Hills and Nicolette S. Zachary ), for Achievable Visions.
Before: MARKEY, P.J., and SAWYER and WILDER, JJ.
Plaintiff, Alwyn Mouzon, appeals the trial court's order granting summary disposition to defendant Achievable Visions (hereafter “ defendant”). We affirm.
This case stems from a bar fight and subsequent shooting of Alwyn Mouzon by Antoine Kope at the Blackwell Center in the city of Highland Park. Defendant began renting the Blackwell Center from the city of Highland Park in fall 2009, with the intentions of creating an after-hours dance club on weekends. As part of the agreement to lease the building, defendant agreed to provide security at all events and contracted with PPO Security Company to provide bouncers at all events held at the club.
During the early morning hours of May 1, 2010, sometime between midnight and 1:00 a.m., plaintiff, along with his friend, Phillip Clark, while on their way to Detroit to visit one of the casinos, drove by the Blackwell Center, observed women entering, and decided to check out the party before going to the casino. After entering through the security checkpoint, plaintiff began to mingle with the crowd, drink, and dance. From time to time, plaintiff would look to the front door to see more people entering the building. At some point around 1:30 a.m., plaintiff saw Antoine Kope enter the building and noticed that he had a pistol in his belt. Not wanting to be where there was a weapon present, plaintiff informed Clark that he would like to leave. Neither Clark nor plaintiff alerted the security team that Kope was carrying a weapon. Clark agreed to leave and went ahead of plaintiff to get their vehicle. As plaintiff was walking toward the door, he noticed Kope being loud and boisterous. It was at this time that Kope bumped into plaintiff, and an altercation ensued. After a verbal exchange, as well as pushing and shoving, plaintiff tried to run outside; before he could make it out the door, Kope shot him.
All parties testified that security was trying to make it to the fight. However, testimony is split on how long the altercation lasted; plaintiff testified it was just a few moments, while several other parties stated it lasted almost 7 to 8 minutes. Defendant became aware of the situation in the dance hall when the DJ noticed the fight and stated over the speaker system, “We don't allow that here.” Police, who were in the vicinity of the building at the time, arrived immediately on the scene after hearing gun shots. Kope did not obey orders to stop firing and was shot and killed by the officers.
Plaintiff filed the initial lawsuit against defendant, the Blackwell Center, and others, alleging that defendant was liable for injuries he sustained as a result of the shooting at the hands of Kope. Plaintiff alleged that defendant owed him a duty of protection that was breached as a result of Kope's being able to enter the building with a weapon and discharge that weapon. Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that it was not vicariously liable for the alleged negligent actions of the security guards, who were independent contractors. In opposing the motion, plaintiff first argued that there were factual questions as to whether the security guards were independent contractors or employees of defendant. Plaintiff next argued that defendant had a nondelegable duty to provide safe premises regardless of the security guards' status as independent contractors. Finally, plaintiff argued that a jury could find that defendant's actions in responding to the assault were unreasonable and that the defendant therefore breached the duty of care it owed its business invitee.
On appeal, plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition on the basis of its determination that any duty defendant had to plaintiff was satisfied as a matter of law when security personnel promptly responded to the altercation and the police arrived at the scene at exactly the same time as the altercation. We disagree.
Questions regarding whether a duty exists are for the court to decide as a matter of law. Scott v. Harper Recreation, Inc., 444 Mich. 441, 448, 506 N.W.2d 857 (1993).
To the extent plaintiff's argument is based on the premise that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jawad A. Shah, M.D., PC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must be raised, addressed, and decided by the lower court." Mouzon v. Achievable Visions , 308 Mich.App. 415, 419, 864 N.W.2d 606 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The failure to timely raise an issue typically waives appellate rev......
- Wyo. Chiropractic Health Clinic, PC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
-
Lichon v. Morse
...in the Wayne Circuit Court, was not addressed and decided by the court. Accordingly, it is unpreserved. Mouzon v. Achievable Visions , 308 Mich. App. 415, 419, 864 N.W.2d 606 (2014). However, this Court had authority to address the argument because the issue concerns "a legal question and a......
-
Dep't of Transp. v. Riverview-Trenton R.R. Co.
...condemnation suit. Thus, while the issue is preserved in some respects, it is unpreserved in others. See Mouzon v. Achievable Visions , 308 Mich. App. 415, 419, 864 N.W.2d 606 (2014). Indeed, to the extent MDOT failed to argue in the trial court that certain challenges were not proper chall......