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 Court held that a premise plaintiff must still establish the four elements of a negligent claim: duty, breach, causation, and damages. While whether a defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff is a legal question for the court to decide, the breach of that duty is a factual question that the jury must determine. This decision marks a significant departure from the previous belief that the apparent nature of a hazard absolves property owners of any responsibility. Instead, it introduces the concept of shared responsibility or comparative negligence when evaluating claims.
How the Michigan Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling Redefines Premises Liability and the ‘Open and Obvious’ Doctrine
People familiar with the “open and obvious” doctrine often know it from experiencing injuries on someone else’s property. This legal principle once relieved property owners of responsibility for ensuring others’ safety if a visible hazard could be avoided with a casual inspection. However, a recent ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court has transformed premises liability cases in the state, prompting significant changes and considerations.
So, what does this ruling mean for those injured on someone else’s property? Property owners can no longer use the “open and obvious” doctrine as a defense in these cases. Instead, they must adhere to a new standard of care called “reasonable foreseeability.” If a property owner can reasonably foresee that a hazard might cause harm, they must take reasonable steps to prevent it, regardless of the hazard’s visibility.
Ruling Empowers Injured Parties, Holds Property Owners to Higher Accountability Standards
This ruling significantly benefits those pursuing premises liability cases by leveling the playing field and making it easier to hold property owners accountable for negligence. It increases the chances of success for cases previously deemed unwinnable due to the “open and obvious” doctrine, providing injured parties with a more significant opportunity to receive deserved compensation. It also signals to property owners that they cannot evade responsibility or liability by claiming an “open and obvious hazard.”
However, property owners are not automatically liable for injuries on their property. They must maintain a safe environment, but they may avoid liability if an injury results from negligence by the injured party or a third party. The injured party must demonstrate that the property owner’s negligence led to their injury, even if the hazard was reasonably foreseeable.
Hold Property Owners Accountable
This ruling excludes Michigan; other states may have different legal standards for premises liability cases. If you’re injured on someone else’s property, work with our experienced personal injury attorneys to navigate the legal landscape and fight for the compensation you deserve.
Ending the “open and obvious” doctrine significantly advances those pursuing premises liability cases in Michigan. This ruling simplifies holding property owners accountable for their negligence, showing that they can’t ignore hazards because they are “open and obvious.” Property owners must maintain a safe environment, and injured parties need to prove negligence caused their injury. At Gallon, Takacs & Boissoneault Law Firm, our team of highly professional attorneys provides exemplary legal services to pursue your case further. Don’t wait; contact us today!
Jonathan Ashton, Partner and Personal Injury Attorney, began his law career at GT&B in 2007 as a law clerk. He was hired as an associate immediately after passing the Ohio Bar in 2008. Jonathan practices in Personal Injury, representing clients who have been injured and need justice and compensation for them to move forward in their lives.
