Brandie Lemmerhart v. Timothy Marciniak
334045
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Plaintiff slipped on ice in the skating-rink parking lot and sued the rink LLC and its individual owners, alleging defendants’ failure to install a proper gutter and to address known ice created a hazardous condition.
- Plaintiff asserted negligence and premises-liability theories; she also alleged patrons had warned defendants earlier that day about ice in the lot.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed plaintiff’s claims.
- The trial court (and this Court on appeal) treated the motion as brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and reviewed the record de novo.
- The court concluded plaintiff’s claims sounded in premises liability (not ordinary negligence) and that the ice was an open-and-obvious danger, so no duty to warn or abate arose.
- Plaintiff also sought to hold the individual owners personally liable; the court refused to pierce the LLC veil and dismissed claims against the individuals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s claims are ordinary negligence or premises liability | Lemmerhart argued negligence based on defendants’ conduct creating the hazard | Defendants argued the injury arose from a land condition and thus sounds in premises liability | Court: Claims sound in premises liability because injury arose from a condition of the land, not overt acts directly harming plaintiff |
| Whether the ice was an open-and-obvious danger (and thus relieved defendants of duty) | Plaintiff argued defects (e.g., missing gutter, prior notice) made the ice actionable | Defendants argued ice was open and obvious and no special aspects made it unreasonably dangerous or unavoidable | Court: Ice was open and obvious under Michigan precedent; no special aspects shown, so no duty to warn/remove |
| Whether individual defendants can be held personally liable | Plaintiff alleged negligence against individuals in addition to the LLC | Defendants argued the LLC, not the individuals, possessed and controlled the premises; no veil-piercing alleged or proven | Court: No basis shown to pierce LLC veil; principals not personally liable for LLC acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (trial-court summary disposition standard on (C)(10))
- Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich. App. 685 (distinguishing premises liability from ordinary negligence; injury arising from land condition governs)
- Mann v. Shusteric Enters., Inc., 470 Mich. 320 (premises possessor duty to invitees; open-and-obvious rule and special-aspects exception)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450 (objective test for open-and-obvious; contractual right to enter does not make danger unavoidable)
- Slaughter v. Blarney Castle Oil Co., 281 Mich. App. 474 (ice and snow hazards typically open and obvious absent special circumstances)
- Duray Dev., LLC v. Perrin, 288 Mich. App. 143 (corporate veil/piercing standards for LLC principals)