Grandberry-Lovette v. Garascia
303 Mich. App. 566
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Grandberry-Lovette alleges Garascia failed to inspect and repair the steps and warn invitees, causing her fall on loose bricks.
- Garascia owned and managed a rental home; he repaired a loose-brick section 9–18 months before the incident.
- Grandberry-Lovette was an invitee; she fell when a second step brick collapsed.
- Garascia’s motion for summary disposition claimed no evidence of actual or constructive notice.
- Trial court granted summary disposition, concluding no constructive notice and inadequate inspection evidence.
- Appellate court reverses, holding there is a factual dispute on constructive notice and the duty to inspect under Michigan premises-liability law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garascia had constructive notice as a matter of law | Grandberry-Lovette contends constructive notice existed. | Garascia argues no constructive notice given lack of prior incidents and visible defects. | There is a material factual dispute on constructive notice. |
| Whether the trial court erred by granting summary disposition | Grandberry-Lovette argues genuine issues preclude dismissal. | Garascia argues undisputed facts show no constructive notice. | The trial court erred in granting summary disposition. |
| Whether the open-and-obvious doctrine forecloses liability or if reasonable inspection requirements apply | Plaintiff argues duty to inspect under reasonable care; danger may be latent. | Garascia relies on open-and-obvious rule and casual inspection. | The duty to inspect may reveal latent dangers; issues of reasonable care and inspection remain for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Detroit & Windsor Ferry Co., 255 Mich 575 (1931) (premises-possessor duty to inspect; liability for latent dangers)
- Hulett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 299 Mich 59 (1941) (duty to inspect and remove latent hazards; knowledge imputed by reasonable care)
- Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Diebold, 124 NW2d 505 (1939) (premises liability; knowledge or discovery through reasonable care)
- Siegel v. Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co., 324 Mich 205 (1949) (premises liability; awareness of dangerous condition not necessary for liability)
- Clark v. Kmart Corp., 465 Mich 416 (2001) (constructive notice if condition would have been discovered by reasonably prudent inspection)
- Kroll v. Katz, 374 Mich 364 (1965) (premises possessor’s duty to inspect; reasonable care standard)
- Torma v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 336 Mich 468 (1953) (duty to know actual conditions; inspection standard)
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich 512 (2001) (open-and-obvious doctrine; limits of invitee duty to inspect casually)
- Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc., 449 Mich 606 (1995) (open-and-obvious danger doctrine)
- Novotney v. Burger King Corp. (On Remand), 198 Mich App 470 (1993) (casual inspection standard for obvious hazards)
- Oppenheim v. Pitcairn, 293 Mich 475 (1940) (premises-possessor duty to inspect and know conditions)
- Keech v. Clements, 303 Mich 69 (1942) (reasonable-care inspection standard)
- Moning v. Alfono, 400 Mich 425 (1977) (fact-specific inquiry on negligence standard)