Estate of David Niehaus v. Asia Nails LLC
332938
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- On Nov. 13, 2012, decedent David Niehaus received a pedicure at Asia Nails from technician and co-owner Vy Tran; hours later he presented at the hospital with partial- and full-thickness burns to both feet.
- Hospital and burn-center records showed second-degree and some third-degree burns; plaintiff’s expert opined injuries were consistent with a footbath at least 120°F. Decedent had diabetic neuropathy and reduced foot sensation.
- Plaintiff (personal representative) sued Asia Nails alleging Count I: ordinary negligence (failure to check/adjust water temperature, train/supervise, use thermometer, warn) and Count II: premises liability (dangerous condition on the premises/water heater).
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing the claim sounded only in premises liability (invoking open-and-obvious danger doctrine) and that it lacked notice and causation; trial court granted the motion.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the premises-liability count but reversed dismissal of the ordinary-negligence count, holding plaintiff pleaded a viable negligence claim and creating factual disputes as to breach and causation; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim sounds in ordinary negligence or only premises liability | Niehaus’s injuries arose from negligent provision of a service (filling/checking water), so ordinary negligence applies | Footbath/hot water is an activity/condition on the land; premises-liability/open-and-obvious doctrine applies | Court: claim sounds in ordinary negligence (service conduct), not premises liability; Count I survives |
| Whether open-and-obvious doctrine bars recovery | Not applicable to negligence claim based on technician’s conduct | Open-and-obvious danger should bar recovery because an average person would withdraw from hot water | Court: doctrine may apply to premises claims, but here premises claim fails on other grounds; open-and-obvious not dispositive for negligence count |
| Whether plaintiff can prove causation given decedent’s diabetic neuropathy | Defendant’s breach (pouring unchecked scalding water) could be a factual cause; eggshell-plaintiff rule applies | Decedent’s undisclosed neuropathy was sole cause; technician reasonably asked if temperature was OK—couldn’t foresee nondisclosure | Court: factual and proximate causation are questions for the jury; neuropathy does not preclude liability (eggshell rule) |
| Whether premises-liability claim is viable (defect in water system) | Alleged failure to monitor water temperature and water-heater maintenance made system dangerous | No evidence of defect or improper water-heater setting; plaintiff only speculates about system defect | Court: premises-liability claim fails—plaintiff did not show a dangerous condition in the water-delivery system |
Key Cases Cited
- Laier v. Kitchen, 266 Mich. App. 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishes premises liability from ordinary negligence; both may be pleaded if facts support them)
- James v. Alberts, 464 Mich. 12 (Mich. 2001) (premises liability arises from a condition on the land; negligence arises from conduct)
- Jahnk v. Allen, 308 Mich. App. 472 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (gravamen of claim controls classification; cannot recast premises claim as negligence if facts show only land condition)
- Eason v. Coggins Mem’l C.M.E. Church, 210 Mich. App. 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (applied open-and-obvious doctrine to instrumentalities on premises)
- Wilkinson v. Lee, 463 Mich. 388 (Mich. 2000) (adopts the eggshell-plaintiff principle: tortfeasor takes plaintiff as found; preexisting conditions do not bar liability)
- Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358 (Mich. 1996) (summary-disposition standard: view documentary evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- O’Neal v. St. John Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 487 Mich. 485 (Mich. 2010) (causation explained as cause-in-fact and legal/proximate cause)
- Craig v. Oakwood Hosp., 471 Mich. 67 (Mich. 2004) (plaintiff must present facts permitting reasonable inference of logical cause-and-effect)
- Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich. App. 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (elements required for negligence/premises claims)