Cheryle Duffy v. John Kinnamon
333578
Mich. Ct. App.Nov 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (social guest/licensee) was sitting by defendant Kinnamon’s backyard fire pit built with a corrugated metal ring and a ~9-inch landscaping block wall, surrounded by loose pea gravel; plaintiff had helped spread and pat down the gravel and had been to the home many times.
- While seated in a chair with her feet on the block wall, plaintiff stood and reached to move the chair; her feet slipped on the loose, slightly sloped pea gravel and she fell backward into the fire pit, sustaining burns.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence and premises liability, alleging defendant knew or should have known the gravel was unstable and failed to warn or make the area safe; she also alleged the fire pit was unsafe.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), contending plaintiff was a licensee who knew or should have known the gravel’s characteristics and that the gravel condition was open and obvious, so no duty to warn existed.
- The trial court denied summary disposition, finding genuine issues whether a hidden danger existed and whether special aspects made the open-and-obvious gravel condition unreasonably dangerous; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn a licensee about pea gravel condition | Duffy: gravel was unstable yet uniformly appearing; hidden/slippery danger not obvious; Kinnamon should have warned | Kinnamon: Duffy helped place and walked on the gravel, so she knew its nature; no duty to inspect or warn of open-and-obvious conditions | Court: Duffy knew or had reason to know gravel’s unstable/slippery nature; no hidden danger requiring warning |
| Open-and-obvious doctrine | Duffy: uniform appearance and slight slope made hazard not readily observable; created question of fact | Kinnamon: pea gravel’s loose, shifting character is objectively obvious and discoverable on casual inspection | Court: pea gravel was open and obvious; a reasonable person would recognize its unstable, shifting nature |
| Special-aspects exception to open-and-obvious rule | Duffy: alleged slope and proximity to fire pit created an unreasonably high risk despite obviousness | Kinnamon: no unusual or extreme hazard; garden-variety fire pit; risk avoidable by ordinary caution | Court: no special aspects shown; risk was not so unreasonably high to overcome the open-and-obvious rule |
| Summary disposition standard application | Duffy: factual disputes precluded summary disposition | Kinnamon: undisputed facts show no duty, so judgment as a matter of law is appropriate | Court: viewing facts in favor of Duffy, no genuine issue of material fact on duty or special aspects; reverse trial court and grant summary disposition to defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakeview Commons v Empower Yourself, LLC, 290 Mich App 503 (summary disposition standard under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618 (summary disposition review principles)
- Benton v Dart Props, Inc, 270 Mich App 437 (elements of premises liability claim)
- Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591 (duty owed to licensees; no duty to inspect or make premises safe)
- Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (open-and-obvious doctrine and special-aspects exception)
- Joyce v Rubin, 249 Mich App 231 (objective standard for open-and-obvious conditions)
- Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512 (focus on objective nature of premises condition)
- Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Svcs, 296 Mich App 685 (injury from a dangerous condition on land sounds in premises liability)