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.
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 ...
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 ...
The Fall of the ‘Open and Obvious’ Doctrine Kari L. Melkonian And Laura A. Alton On July 28, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned its long-standing rule that property. owners have no duty to protect against open-and-obvious dangers. For the past 20-plus years, the “open and obvious” doctrine was a go-to defense for premises-liability ...
Aug 4, 2023 · On July 28, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court, in the consolidated cases of Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil Inc. and Pinsky v. Kroger Co. of Mich. , overturned three decades of premises liability ...
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 warn of an open and obvious danger. In Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450, 460-461; 821 NW2d 88 (2012), the Michigan Supreme Court explained that a “possessor of ...
