The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450, 460-461; 821 NW2d 88 (2012) have significant implications on the state’s premises liability law and the ‘open and obvious doctrine’. This doctrine rests on the principle that property possessors have no obligation to protect or issue warnings about dangers that are clear and noticeable as those can be reasonably avoided by an invitee. It effectively demands that an average individual with ordinary intelligence should foresee such hazards.
However, with the court’s decision in this case, substantial shifts are expected in the application and interpretation of this doctrine. Following this ruling, it is not just the foreseeability of the danger but also its ‘open and obvious’ nature that will play a significant role in premises liability claims.
The details and implications of this case have been thoroughly analyzed by Kerr Russell. Legal practitioners dealing with premises liability should take heed of this information to better understand its ramifications for current and future cases.