Daniel Sievert v. Michigan Pizza Hut Inc, 330607

Plaintiff, a self-described regular Pizza Hut customer, tripped entering the restaurant from the parking lot while retrieving a carryout order after several inches of snow had fallen.
He testified there was a "blanket" of about five to seven inches of snow covering the parking lot and employee vehicles.
Plaintiff alleged he tripped over the edge of a ramp at the restaurant entrance that was hidden by snow and suffered injury.
Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing the ramp hazard was open and obvious because plaintiff knew of the ramp from prior visits and could not see the ground under the snow.
The trial court granted summary disposition, finding plaintiff’s prior knowledge and the visible heavy snowfall put him on notice of the risk; plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Plaintiff appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the open-and-obvious doctrine bars recovery for tripping on a snow-covered ramp	Sievert: He tripped on a hidden hazard (ramp) not an obvious condition, so doctrine doesn’t apply	Pizza Hut/owners: Sievert knew of the ramp from prior visits and saw deep snow, so danger was open and obvious	Held: Open-and-obvious doctrine applies; summary disposition affirmed
Whether plaintiff’s prior knowledge of the ramp may be considered	Sievert: Court shouldn’t rely on his prior visits to deem the danger open and obvious	Defs: Prior visits gave actual knowledge, placing plaintiff on notice of the ramp	Held: Court properly considered plaintiff’s testimony of prior knowledge; it supports application of doctrine
Whether heavy snow made the danger undiscoverable	Sievert: Snow concealed the ramp, creating a hidden danger	Defs: Several inches of snow put an average invitee on notice that unseen trip hazards may exist	Held: Visible deep snow reasonably informs an invitee of potential concealed hazards; danger discoverable on casual inspection
Whether additional warnings or plowing are required to make the danger open and obvious	Sievert: Warning posts or plowing would have revealed the ramp	Defs: Whether danger could have been made more obvious is irrelevant to whether it, as presented, was open and obvious	Held: The proper inquiry is how the danger was presented; no liability where danger was open and obvious as presented

461 Mich 109 (Maiden v. Rozwood) (standard of review for summary disposition)
464 Mich 512 (Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc.) (open-and-obvious doctrine limits premises liability to invitees)
492 Mich 450 (Hoffner v. Lanctoe) (premises possessor not required to guarantee safety)
440 Mich 85 (Riddle v. McLouth Steel Prod. Corp.) (anticipation-of-harm exception discussion)
263 Mich App 324 (Bragan v. Symanzik) (discussion of invitee duties and open-and-obvious doctrine)
198 Mich App 470 (Novotney v. Burger King Corp.) (casual-inspection test for discoverability of danger)