Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450

Charlotte Hoffner, a fitness-club member, fell on an icy sidewalk at the entrance of Fitness Xpress in a building owned/maintained by the Lanctoes.
Lanctoes were contractually responsible for snow removal; some tenants occasionally salted the sidewalk.
Hoffner observed ice at the entrance but proceeded to enter, believing she could manage the hazard, and injured her back.
Hoffner sued the Lanctoes (and Fitness Xpress) for premises liability; all moved for summary disposition.
Courts split: open-and-obvious doctrine barred liability only if no special aspects; lower courts considered the ice condition to be effectively unavoidable.
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed in part, holding the ice was open and obvious and the facts did not establish any special aspects justifying liability; case remanded for summary disposition in favor of the Lanctoes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ice was an open and obvious hazard.	Hoffner argued it was effectively unavoidable due to Hoffner's entry right as a member, creating a special aspect.	Lanctoes argued the hazard was open and obvious and not a special aspect.	Ice was open and obvious; no special aspects found.
Whether the open-and-obvious doctrine is defeated by a special-aspects/unavoidability theory.	Open-and-obvious should not bar liability because Hoffner faced an effectively unavoidable hazard due to contractual access.	Open-and-obvious doctrine governs; no special aspects to justify liability.	Special aspects not established; liability not imposed.
Whether inviting relationship or business invitee status creates a broader duty to address open-and-obvious hazards.	Membership/contractual access should not diminish the duty to exercise reasonable care.	Invitee status does not create an absolute right to sue for open-and-obvious hazards when no special aspects exist.	Invitee status does not override the open-and-obvious rule absent special aspects.
Whether Restatement/Lugo framework governs the outcome over the majority’s special-aspects approach.	Restatement approach requires reasonable anticipatory steps to diminish hazards.	Michigan follows Lugo’s special-aspects framework as the controlling rule.	Court applied Restatement-based foreseeability while recognizing limited exceptions; held for summary disposition for the Lanctoes.

Lugo v Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich 512 (2001) (developed special-aspects/unreasonableness framework for open-and-obvious hazards)
Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc., 449 Mich 606 (1995) (premises owner’s duty; open-and-obvious exception; invitee status)
Quinlivan v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 395 Mich 244 (1975) (winter-snow/ice duties; duty to diminish hazards after accumulation)
Corey v Davenport College of Business (On Remand), 251 Mich App 1 (2002) (open-and-obvious with no special aspects; whether steps were reasonable)
Robertson v Blue Water Oil Co., 268 Mich App 588 (2005) (effectively unavoidable discussed; careful use in Lugo framework)
Joyce v Rubin, 249 Mich App 231 (2002) (illustrative of unavoidability versus ability to avoid hazard)