Search results
Michigan courts in 2001 addressed the unclear open and obvious danger doctrine head on in Lugo v. Ameritech Corp, Inc.,8 placing it directly within the element of duty — a question of law for the judge to decide.
Only “special aspects” could justify imposing a legal duty despite the open-and-obvious nature of the condition. These “special aspects” are divided into two categories: (1) unreasonable dangers (those that pose an unreasonably high risk of harm), and (2) effectively unavoidable conditions.
Aug 7, 2023 · Before July 2023, the open and obvious doctrine killed many premises liability cases before they began. Now, these cases stand a chance in court, and because of Michigan’s comparative fault law , plaintiffs are eligible for damages, even if they share fault.
Aug 2, 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.
Kroger, the Court overturned the long-standing “open and obvious” doctrine and reviewed the standard on which premises liability cases are decided. The Court held that a premise plaintiff must still establish the four elements of a negligent claim: duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Property owners in Michigan had long enjoyed the protection from liability for hazardous conditions on their property that are considered “open and obvious.”. The “open and obvious” doctrine arose out of the idea that while a property owner had a duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, a landowner had no duty to ...
Aug 4, 2023 · Kroger Co. of Mich. , overturned three decades of premises liability jurisprudence by ruling, in a 5–2 decision that the open and obvious danger defense is no longer part of a traditional duty ...
