Detroit Injury Lawyer Blog
Premises liability is an area of law that holds property owners and occupiers responsible for maintaining a safe environment for visitors. In Michigan, the “open and obvious” doctrine is an important concept in premises liability law. This blog will discuss what the “open and obvious” doctrine is, how it affects premises liability cases in Michigan, and what you need to know if you have been injured on someone else’s property.
To start with, it is the law in Michigan that a premises possessor owes a duty to undertake reasonable efforts to make its premises reasonably safe for its invitees. Lugo v Ameritech Corp, 464 Mich 512, 526; 629 NW2d 384 (2001). As such, 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.” Id. at 516, citing Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 609; 537 NW2d 185 (1995). A premises possessor is generally not required to protect an invitee from open and obvious dangers however. Riddle v. McLouth Steel Products, Corp., 440 Mich 85, 91; 485 N.W.2d 676 (1992).
WHAT IS THE “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” DOCTRINE?
The “open and obvious” doctrine is an important consideration in premises liability cases in Michigan because it can limit the liability of property owners and occupiers. If a hazard is deemed “open and obvious,” the injured party may be found to have assumed the risk of injury by proceeding into the dangerous area. In such cases, the property owner or occupier may not be held liable for the resulting injuries.
The standard for determining if a condition is open and obvious is whether “an average user with ordinary intelligence would have been able to discover the danger and the risk presented upon casual inspection.” The test is objective, and the inquiry is whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have foreseen the danger, not whether the particular plaintiff knew or should have known that the condition was hazardous.
In determining whether a condition is “open and obvious”, the courts will consider a variety of factors, such as lighting conditions, the nature and extent of the hazard, whether the hazard was effectively unavoidable, or other special aspects to determine whether the hazard was truly “open and obvious.”
There is an exception for slip and falls on “black ice,” a common condition in Michigan, however. With respect to black ice, the “open and obvious” defense is not available without evidence that the black ice in question would have been visible on casual inspection prior to the fall or other indicia of a potentially hazardous condition. “Other indicia” may include whether it was raining or snowing at the time of the fall, whether ice and snow was visible at the scene of the fall, etc.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE BEEN INJURED ON SOMEONE ELSE’S PROPERTY
If you have been injured on someone else’s property in Michigan, it is important to seek medical attention immediately and document the hazard that caused your injury. You should also contact an experienced personal injury attorney who can help you navigate the complex legal process and determine whether you have a viable premises liability claim.
CONCLUSION
The “open and obvious” doctrine is an important concept in premises liability law in Michigan. While it can limit the liability of property owners and occupiers, it is not an absolute defense to premises liability claims. If you have been injured on someone else’s property in Michigan, it is important to seek the guidance of an experienced personal injury attorney who can help you navigate the legal process and advocate for your rights. Call the Davis Law Center for a free consultation regarding your premises liability claim. (248) 865-7740.