Search results
People also ask
What is the volunteer doctrine in Michigan?
Why did the Supreme Court reject lugo's'special aspects' doctrine?
What is prima facie premises liability in Michigan?
What is the purpose of introducing a distinction in a law?
5 days ago · The Open and Obvious Doctrine originated with the 2001 Michigan Supreme Court case Lugo v. Ameritech Corp. The doctrine aimed to strike a balance between a business owner’s responsibilities and a visitor’s personal accountability. This doctrine initially sought to define the obligations of property owners by asserting that easily detectable ...
3 days ago · The Supreme Court explained that the Lugo Court erred by holding that the open and obvious danger doctrine related to a land possessor's duty because this was inconsistent with Michigan caselaw and statutes "articulating Michigan's shift from contributory negligence to comparative fault." Id. at 144. Rather, the Supreme Court declared that ...
May 3, 2024 · The open and obvious hazard doctrine, therefore, has become an issue in a great many premises liability cases. See §§9.13–9.15 for further discussion of open and obvious hazards. Note that an invitee of a business establishment who ventures into an area of the establishment without permission or invitation becomes a trespasser and accepts ...
Apr 26, 2024 · In a similar case, Anderson v Wiegand, 223 Mich App 549, 567 NW2d 452 (1997), plaintiff slipped and fell on ice while attending an open house conducted by the property owners’ real estate agent. The property owners left the key with the agent and were gone at the time of the accident.
May 9, 2024 · Act 170 of 1964. 691.1402a Municipal corporation; maintenance of sidewalk; liability; presumption; additional defense; limitation. Sec. 2a. (1) A municipal corporation in which a sidewalk is installed adjacent to a municipal, county, or state highway shall maintain the sidewalk in reasonable repair. (2) A municipal corporation is not liable for ...
Apr 25, 2024 · Michigan is among the growing number of states whose courts have considered adopting the “major questions doctrine,” the controversial interpretive tool integral to a pair of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The doctrine directs courts to require “clear congressional authorization” before permitting agencies to exercise authority ...
750.377a Willful and malicious destruction of personal property; enhanced sentence. Sec. 377a. (1) A person who willfully and maliciously destroys or injures the personal property of another person is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 ...
