in Re Duncan Park Trust
331869
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- Eleven-year-old Chance Nash died after sledding down a wooded, undeveloped hill in Duncan Park and striking a naturally fallen tree.
- The land was conveyed in 1913 by Martha Duncan in an express trust (Duncan Park Trust) with three named trustees tasked with maintaining the park for the citizens of Grand Haven.
- Plaintiff (Chance’s estate) sued the Duncan Park Commission, the Duncan Park Trust and its trustees, and the park groundskeeper for negligence and gross negligence relating to park maintenance and failure to warn.
- The Court of Appeals previously held the trust was valid and the trustees owned the land (Nash I); the case was remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand, defendants moved for summary disposition raising the Recreational Use Act (RUA) immunity, open-and-obvious defense, lack of duty, EPIC protection for trustees, and governmental immunity; the trial court granted summary disposition.
- Separately, the probate court reformed the trust and appointed the City of Grand Haven as successor trustee after the original trustees resigned and no successors were willing to serve; plaintiff appealed that reformation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the RUA | RUA shouldn’t bar claims because park is effectively public or a ‘‘hybrid’’ open-to-public property | Duncan Park trustees are landowners; RUA applies to privately owned land open for recreation and bars ordinary negligence claims | RUA applies; plaintiff’s ordinary negligence claims are barred unless gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct shown |
| Gross negligence / willful and wanton conduct | Trustees knew of sledding and the fallen tree; their inaction was grossly negligent | Failure to remove a naturally fallen tree in an undeveloped forest is not gross negligence; at most ordinary negligence | No genuine factual dispute that defendants acted with gross negligence; summary disposition for defendants affirmed |
| Open and obvious danger / premises liability | Snow could partially conceal the fallen tree; creates special aspect and question of fact | Trees (including fallen trees) in an undeveloped wooded hill are open and obvious; no special aspect creating unreasonable risk | Open-and-obvious doctrine applies; defeats premises liability claim |
| Probate court reformation & appointment of City as trustee | Reformation unnecessary; City is not a named beneficiary and sole-trustee/sole-beneficiary rule bars appointment | Continuation of trust terms is impracticable (no successors willing to serve; funding and governance problems); City should be successor trustee to fulfill donor intent | Probate court did not err: trust terms were impracticable; City appointed successor trustee and trust reformed prospectively |
Key Cases Cited
- Nash v. Duncan Park Comm’n, 304 Mich. App. 599 (Court of Appeals) (prior appellate decision holding Duncan Park formed an express trust and trustees own the land)
- Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 491 Mich. 200 (Michigan Supreme Court) (standard of review for summary disposition)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (Michigan Supreme Court) (summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and required showing to defeat such motion)
- Duffy v. Irons Area Tourist Ass’n, 300 Mich. App. 542 (Court of Appeals) (RUA protection applies to landowners, tenants, lessees)
- Ballard v. Ypsilanti, 457 Mich. 564 (Michigan Supreme Court) (RUA does not apply to public property; RUA’s purpose is to encourage private landowners to open land for recreation)
- Tarlea v. Crabtree, 263 Mich. App. 80 (Court of Appeals) (definition/standard for gross negligence in governmental-immunity context)
- Jennings v. Southwood, 446 Mich. 125 (Michigan Supreme Court) (definition of willful and wanton misconduct)
- Boaldin v. Univ. of Kansas, 747 P.2d 811 (Kansas Supreme Court) (sledding-on-campus case holding awareness of sledding and prior injuries did not constitute gross and wanton negligence)