Adriana Greenia v. Michael Pfeiffer
332841
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- Adriana Greenia (13) rode a dirt bike on land owned by Michael Pfeiffer and had permission to use his backyard track; Pfeiffer watched from a swing.
- On the day of injury Adriana attempted to jump two small hills at encouragement from an adult stepbrother; she crashed on the third attempt and suffered a catastrophic spinal injury.
- Plaintiff sued for failure to warn and negligent/grossly negligent supervision; defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
- Defendant relied on the Recreational Use Act (RUA) and ORV-specific statute (MCL 324.81133(3)) arguing Adriana assumed inherent risks of ORV riding, and that he was not grossly negligent.
- The trial court denied summary disposition, finding a factual question on gross negligence; the Court of Appeals granted leave to review and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Adriana assume the risk of injury from jumping hills while ORV riding? | Greenia: She did not assume risk of what she was not warned about; owner should have warned. | Pfeiffer: MCL 324.81133(3) deems inherent terrain risks assumed by ORV participants, so no duty to warn. | Held: Adriana assumed the inherent risk of jumping hills; Pfeiffer had no duty to warn. |
| Is Pfeiffer liable under RUA unless his conduct was grossly negligent or willful/wanton? | Greenia: Failure to supervise/stop the jump was gross negligence. | Pfeiffer: RUA bars liability absent gross negligence; his conduct was not grossly negligent. | Held: RUA’s gross-negligence exception inapplicable here because evidence does not show gross negligence. |
| Whether Pfeiffer owed a duty to supervise Adriana (and scope of that duty)? | Greenia: Pfeiffer had a duty to supervise riders on his property. | Pfeiffer: He neither owned the bike nor was “in charge”; no special supervising duty shown. | Held: Court assumed arguendo a duty but found no evidence meeting gross-negligence standard even if duty existed. |
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact as to gross negligence to preclude summary disposition? | Greenia: Facts (watching, failure to stop) raise a question for jury. | Pfeiffer: His conduct (requiring helmets, watching, not encouraging) was not reckless or a substantial lack of concern. | Held: No genuine issue — reasonable minds could not differ; conduct did not rise to gross negligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballard v. Ypsilanti Twp., 457 Mich 564 (RUA is liability-limiting; encourages landowners to open property)
- Woodman v. Kera LLC, 486 Mich 228 (RUA applies regardless of age)
- Anderson v. Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc., 469 Mich 20 (participants who accept inherent sport risks are precluded from recovery)
- Neal v. Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 (RUA exempts landowner liability unless gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct)
- Xu v. Gay, 257 Mich App 263 (gross negligence defined as conduct showing substantial lack of concern for injury)
- Tarlea v. Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80 (mere hindsight or saying more precautions could be taken is insufficient for gross negligence)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (plaintiff must show more than ordinary negligence to establish gross negligence)