Betty Davis v. Olympia Entertainment Inc
332807
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Davis) tripped and fell in a dark theater after being escorted by an usher to the wrong seat and then attempting to find her correct seat in the dark.
- The usher had initially illuminated the steps with a flashlight while escorting her to the original seat.
- Plaintiff had attended this theater several times before and knew the house lights would be off during the performance.
- Plaintiff sued Olympia Entertainment for negligence and premises liability in Wayne Circuit Court; defendant moved for summary disposition.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff stated an ordinary negligence claim | Davis: usher’s conduct (taking her to wrong seat and leaving) was negligent and caused the fall | Olympia: the harm arose from a dangerous condition on the land (dark step), so claim is premises liability, not ordinary negligence | Court: Dismissed ordinary negligence claim; the claim is premised on a dangerous condition and is therefore premises liability |
| Whether the open-and-obvious doctrine applies to the dark step | Davis: darkness of step precludes open-and-obvious characterization | Olympia: darkness/steps are open and obvious; invitee should have noticed risk and taken precautions | Court: Risk of steps in a dark theater is open and obvious; no genuine factual dispute; doctrine applies |
| Whether a "special aspects" exception saves plaintiff's claim | Davis: (argued implicitly) usher-created condition made it unreasonably dangerous | Olympia: no special aspects shown that make the condition unreasonably dangerous | Court: Plaintiff did not properly brief special-aspects; issue abandoned and not shown to exist |
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to judgment under MCR 2.116(I)(2) | Davis: sought entry of judgment in her favor | Olympia: facts do not entitle plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law | Court: Denied plaintiff’s request; summary disposition for defendant affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakeview Commons v Empower Yourself, LLC, 290 Mich App 503 (summary-disposition standard)
- Allison v AEW Capital Mgmt, LLP, 481 Mich 419 (genuine-issue standard)
- Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs, 296 Mich App 685 (distinguishing premises liability from ordinary negligence)
- Lane v B & J Theatres, Inc., 314 Mich 666 (lighting in a theater is a premises-liability issue)
- Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (open-and-obvious doctrine explained)
- Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc., 464 Mich 512 (duty to invitee and special-aspects exception)
- Joyce v Rubin, 249 Mich App 231 (objective test for open-and-obvious)
- Singerman v Muni Serv Bureau, Inc., 455 Mich 135 (steps and darkness as open and obvious)
- Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc., 449 Mich 606 (steps/trip hazards generally open and obvious)
- Tyra v Organ Procurement Agency of Mich, 498 Mich 68 (failure to brief an issue is abandonment)