In a significant ruling on July 28, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court diminished the commonplace application of the ‘open and obvious doctrine’ in premises liability claim cases.
Two prominent cases sparked this modification in the interpretation and application of premises liability law in Michigan. These cases, Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., and Pinski v. Kroger Co of Michigan, led to a reassessment of the previous leading case Lugo v. Ameritech Corp, 464 Mich 512 (2001), which established the currently under debate open and obvious doctrine.
The open and obvious doctrine is a crucial component of premises liability law. It defines the duty of care a property possessor owes to potential visitors and is applied to determine whether or not such a duty exists in any given scenario. In essence, if the danger posed by a particular condition on the premises is ‘open and obvious’, it was previously presumed that the possessor reasonably did not owe any duty of care to prevent it.
However, with the recent verdict, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled the Lugo v. Ameritech Corp case, effectively creating a seismic shift in how premises liability cases will be handled moving forward.
The repercussions of this ruling are significant, especially for corporate legal departments and law firms alike. As this ruling transfuses in Michigan’s legal system, it will likely result in increased litigation around premises liability as the interpretation of a possessor’s duty of care evolves.
Further, organizations must now reassess their liability risk assessments and potential legal defenses. With the previous ‘open and obvious’ protection now being far less solid, the reassessment of organizational safety guidelines and preventive measures to mitigate liability risk should now be of high priority.
As legal professionals continue to navigate and understand the full implications of this ruling, it is unmistakably an impactful and pivotal point in Michigan premises liability law.