Search results
Ryanne Rizzo is an attorney at Latham Law Group in Birmingham, where she focuses her litigation practice on plaintiff’s side personal injury cases.In addition to practicing law, she sits on the governing board for the State Bar of Michigan Litigation Section, is a member of the Michigan Association for Justice, and represents the 6th Circuit on the State Bar of Michigan Representative Assembly.
The application of the open and obvious defense to each of these statutory duties will be presented below. 1. Lessor’s Duty to Maintain Premises in “Reasonable Repair”. MCL 554.139(1) sets forth the statutory duty, and states: In every lease or license of residential premises, the lessor or licensor covenants:
On July 28, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court made a groundbreaking ruling that transformed premises liability cases. In the notable cases of Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc. and Pinsky v. Kroger, the Court overturned the long-standing “open and obvious” doctrine and reviewed the standard on which premises liability cases are decided. The ...
Aug 7, 2023 · August 7, 2023. By: Jeffrey C. Hart. On July 28, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the open and obvious doctrine, opening the door for individuals to file and win premises liability cases against Michigan property owners. This ruling signifies a massive shift in premises liability law, which deterred lawsuits and benefited landowners ...
Aug 4, 2023 · On July 28, 2023, the Supreme Court of Michigan significantly changed the framework of premises liability law in Michigan and the open and obvious doctrine, which mainly found application in slip ...
Jul 28, 2023 · The common-law elements of a tort claim are (1) a duty, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation of the injury, and (4) damages. In Lugo, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the open-and-obvious-danger doctrine and its exceptions are addressed under the “duty” element of a premises-liability case.
Nov 30, 2022 · A condition is open and obvious if “an average user with ordinary intelligence [would] have been able to discover the danger and the risk presented upon casual inspection.” Novotney v. Burger King Corp., 198 Mich App 470, 475; 499 NW2d 379 (1993). The open and obvious defense has long been criticized by plaintiff personal injury attorneys ...
