862 N.W.2d 232
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- In a premises liability action, Ferguson Enterprises employee Gordon J. Bredow was injured clearing icicles on defendants' premises on December 26, 2008.
- Bredow and a coworker, Layton, independently attempted to remove snow and ice near the building entrance; icicles were large and ice reportedly fell from the roof.
- Bredow used a snow shovel to pry icicles; a portion of roof ice fell and struck him, causing serious injuries.
- The trial court granted summary disposition to defendants, determining the snow/ice on the roof was an open and obvious danger with no special aspects.
- The issue on appeal was whether Bredow’s status on the premises was that of an invitee, licensee, or trespasser, and what duty defendants owed.
- The court hold that, at the time of injury, Bredow was a licensee because he engaged in an activity outside the scope of his invitation and Ferguson’s business purpose, thereby limiting defendants’ duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What was plaintiff’s status at injury? | Bredow remained an invitee by virtue of Ferguson’s invitation. | Bredow became a licensee by exceeding the scope of the invitation when clearing icicles. | Bredow was a licensee; no duty to inspect or make safe, nor to warn, unless danger was hidden and unknown. |
| Did open and obvious danger doctrine bar liability, or did special aspects apply? | Open and obvious danger with potential special aspects could still support liability. | Open and obvious danger without special aspects negates liability. | Open and obvious danger; no compelling special aspects that would create liability for licensee. |
| Did a duty to warn or to inspect exist for licensees in this scenario? | Defendants owed a duty to warn of dangerous roof ice conditions. | As a licensee, plaintiff bore risk awareness; no duty to warn about known dangers. | No duty to warn or inspect owed to licensee given plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the danger. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591; 614 N.W.2d 88 (2000) (defines duty by entrant status; licensee owes warning of hidden dangers)
- James v Alberts, 464 Mich 12; 626 N.W.2d 158 (2001) (entrance status and duty vary with circumstances)
- Constantineau v DCI Food Equip, Inc, 195 Mich App 511; 491 N.W.2d 262 (1992) (illustrates change in invitee status when scope of invitation exceeded)
- Bedell v Berkey, 76 Mich 435; 43 N.W.308 (1889) (foresight of invitee’s duty limited by scope of invitation)
- Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs, 296 Mich App 685; 822 N.W.2d 254 (2012) (open and obvious danger with limited landowner duty)
- Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512; 629 N.W.2d 384 (2001) (special aspects may create liability for open and obvious hazards)
- Perkoviq v Delcor Homes—Lake Shore Pointe, Ltd, 466 Mich 11; 643 N.W.2d 212 (2002) (open and obvious danger doctrine; exception for unreasonably dangerous conditions)