Demetria Moses v. Arbors of Aldingbrooke LLC
329635
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Moses) slipped on ice on a sidewalk outside defendant Arbors of Aldingbrooke (an assisted living facility) after warming her car and sued in premises liability.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); the trial court granted the motion and entered a stipulated dismissal.
- Plaintiff admitted she saw the ice, knew weather conditions could create slippery surfaces, and walked carefully but nonetheless chose to cross the icy sidewalk to her car and back.
- Plaintiff argued the open-and-obvious doctrine should not apply because the icy sidewalk had a "special aspect" — effectively unavoidable risk — given limited routes and the need to retrieve personal belongings.
- Defendant argued alternatives (other doors, routes, grass) were available and the hazard was open and obvious, so no duty to warn or protect existed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, found the ice was open and obvious and not effectively unavoidable, and affirmed summary disposition for defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the icy sidewalk was open and obvious | Moses: ice visible but allegedly posed a special, effectively unavoidable risk | Arbors: ice was open and obvious; invitee assumed risk; alternate routes existed | Court: ice was open and obvious; Moses knew risk; no genuine fact issue |
| Whether a special aspect (effective unavoidability) defeats open-and-obvious bar | Moses: only unlocked door/need to retrieve belongings made condition unavoidable | Arbors: multiple entrances/routes (including grass); plaintiff chose route to car | Court: plaintiff had alternate routes and choice; no effective unavoidability |
| Whether plaintiff’s need to retrieve belongings compelled confronting the hazard | Moses: retrieving belongings required returning inside, making sidewalk unavoidable | Arbors: retrieving belongings could be postponed or alternate route used | Court: retrieving items did not eliminate alternate routes or create a narrow exception |
| Whether summary disposition was appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) | Moses: disputed facts about alternative routes and safety of grass | Arbors: deposition admissions show no factual dispute; plaintiff chose to cross ice | Court: no genuine issue of material fact; summary disposition proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonner v. City of Brighton, 495 Mich 209 (summary disposition standard and evidence view on C(10))
- Debano-Griffin v. Lake County, 493 Mich 167 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (open-and-obvious doctrine; special aspects: unreasonably dangerous or effectively unavoidable)
- Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591 (invitee status and landowner duties)
- Joyce v. Rubin, 249 Mich App 231 (alternate-route reasoning in snow/ice cases)
- Lymon v. Freedland, 314 Mich App 746 (contrast where all routes posed similar hazards; factual question on avoidability)