Foust v. Home Depot USA, Inc.
166 F. Supp. 3d 881
E.D. Mich.2016Background
- On June 3, 2014 Theresa Foust (invitee) tripped on a Home Depot conversion (wing‑stack) cart in an Auburn Hills store and sustained a femur fracture requiring surgery.
- The conversion cart had a 2'×2' base and 51" pegboard; portions of metal strips extended beyond the rear base near floor level; cart and concrete floor were similar gray tones.
- Cart had been moved into the aisle per a store plan and was typically placed at a 45° angle; aisles were ~8–10 feet wide and there was room to pass without contacting the cart.
- Mrs. Foust testified she did not see the cart or look at the floor before falling; photos taken after the accident showed the cart plainly visible but some base/corner and the extending metal strips were less obvious from certain approaches.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the danger was open and obvious; Plaintiffs argued a factual dispute about openness and invoked a shopkeeper duty to keep aisles safe.
- The court treated the claim as premises liability, granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ separate negligence count, but denied summary judgment on the premises liability claim due to triable issues about “special aspects.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the conversion cart/display an open and obvious danger that bars liability? | The cart (and particularly the base/metal strips) was not open and obvious; fact issues exist for the jury. | The cart was highly visible and thus an open and obvious condition relieving duty. | Denied summary judgment — genuine issue whether metal strips were discoverable on casual inspection. |
| Do "special aspects" of the condition remove the open-and-obvious bar? | Cart’s rear metal strips, floor coloration, and visibility from different approaches are special aspects creating unreasonable risk. | No special aspects here; nothing uniquely dangerous beyond typical trip hazard. | Found triable issue: strips’ location, color, and floor level could constitute special aspects. |
| Is the shopkeeper duty a separate negligence claim immune from the open-and-obvious doctrine? | Plaintiffs: shopkeeper duty to keep aisles safe is independent and not subject to open-and-obvious. | Defendant: duty is ordinary premises duty; open-and-obvious applies. | Court held the shopkeeper duty is not separate — open-and-obvious doctrine applies; granted summary judgment on the separate negligence count. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate for all claims? | Plaintiffs sought denial as factual disputes exist. | Defendant sought full summary judgment. | Partial grant: summary judgment for Defendant on Count II (negligence claim framed separately); denial as to Count I (premises liability) — triable issues remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and genuine‑issue analysis)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (party opposing summary judgment must present specific facts creating genuine issue)
- Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc., 449 Mich. 606 (special‑aspects doctrine for open and obvious dangers)
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich. 512 (clarifies open‑and‑obvious rule and special‑aspects threshold)
- Clark v. Kmart Corp., 465 Mich. 416 (describes storekeeper duty to provide reasonably safe aisles)
- Jaworski v. Great Scott Supermarkets, 403 Mich. 689 (distraction theory in the context of contributory negligence; explains customer attention to merchandise)
- Price v. Kroger Co. of Mich., 284 Mich. App. 496 (focus on objective observability for open‑and‑obvious analysis)