Cynthia Penny v. Phillip Schultz, 331641

Background

Plaintiff attended an auction at 36094 Priestap Street run by Rowley’s Auction Service, LLC (RAS) and fell through open French doors onto a ~3-foot drop with no steps or porch, injuring herself.
Phillip Schultz (homeowner/personal representative) hired RAS to conduct an estate auction under a contract giving RAS a commission and responsibility to run the sale and remit proceeds.
RAS employees set up the auction and used the French doors to move items; Phillip retained keys, secured the home after the auction, and remained on the premises during the sale.
Phillip testified RAS’s principal, Brian Rowley, said he would “take care of it” when Phillip raised safety concerns about the French doors; RAS witnesses disputed any broad promise to secure the premises.
The trial court denied RAS’s MCR 2.116(C)(10) motion; this Court granted leave and reversed, holding RAS owed no duty as a possessor/occupier and the hazard was open and obvious.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RAS owed a duty as a possessor/occupier of the land	RAS agreed to “take care of it” and undertook actions (setup, use of doors) sufficient to show possession/control	RAS only contracted to run the auction, did not have keys, did not control or manage premises safety, and acted only at owner’s request	RAS did not have possession/control or intent to control the property; no duty as possessor/occupier
Whether the hazard (no steps, ~3-foot drop) was open and obvious	Plaintiff could not see the drop from the dining room due to door paneling; RAS should have warned or secured area	The lack of steps/drop-off was observable on approach; ordinary users could discover it; no duty to warn	The condition was open and obvious; no duty to warn and no special-aspects exception applied
Whether plaintiff’s claim sounds in ordinary negligence rather than premises liability	Plaintiff framed claim as negligence for failure to lock doors/put up warnings	RAS argued the injury arose from a dangerous condition of the land and therefore is a premises-liability claim	The claim arises from a condition of the land and must be analyzed as premises liability, not ordinary negligence
Whether summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) was appropriate	Plaintiff urged factual disputes about promises and visibility precluded summary disposition	RAS argued no material factual dispute on possession/control and open-and-obvious nature	Summary disposition should have been granted for RAS; court reversed trial court’s denial

Key Cases Cited

Pace v. Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich 1 (summary disposition standard review)
Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (evidence view and materials for C(10) motions)
Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 491 Mich 200 (C(10) tests factual sufficiency)
Merritt v. Nickelson, 407 Mich 544 (definitions of "possessor" in premises-liability law)
Derbabian v. S & C Snowplowing, Inc., 249 Mich App 695 (possession/control defined via dictionary meaning)
Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich 512 (invitee duty and open-and-obvious doctrine; special aspects exception)
Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (narrow application of special-aspects exception)
Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich App 685 (injury arising from land condition sounds in premises liability)
Kubczak v. Chemical Bank & Trust Co., 456 Mich 653 (possession/control relevance to ability to prevent injury)
Perkoviq v. Delcor Homes-Lake Shore Pointe, Ltd., 466 Mich 11 (discoverability of hazardous conditions on casual inspection)