Jahnke v. Allen
308 Mich. App. 472
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff (Jahnke) lived adjacent to defendant Allen and they were friends; Allen was plaintiff’s landlord.
- Defendant was conducting landscaping/repair work; some concrete pavers had been removed near his garage.
- At night plaintiff escorted defendant arm‑in‑arm toward defendant’s garage while defendant experienced dizziness; walkway area was unlit.
- Plaintiff’s foot fell off the edge where pavers were removed, she fell, and defendant fell on top of her; she injured her shoulder.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence; defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing the open‑and‑obvious danger doctrine in premises liability barred recovery.
- Trial court granted summary disposition; plaintiff appealed arguing the claim sounded in ordinary negligence, not premises liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim sounds in ordinary negligence or premises liability | The incident arose from defendant’s negligent conduct in escorting her across property (ordinary negligence) | The injury resulted from a dangerous condition on the land (removed paver), so it is premises liability | The claim sounds in premises liability |
| Whether alleging defendant created the hazard converts the claim to ordinary negligence | Creation of the condition and conduct make it ordinary negligence | Creation of condition on the land does not transform a premises claim into ordinary negligence | Creation alone does not change the claim; premises analysis applies |
| Whether open‑and‑obvious doctrine bars recovery | Plaintiff contends negligence claim avoids open‑and‑obvious defense | Defendant asserts open‑and‑obvious danger doctrine applies to bar liability | Open‑and‑obvious doctrine bars plaintiff’s claim; summary disposition proper |
| Whether leave to amend complaint should be allowed to recharacterize claim | Amendment should be permitted to plead ordinary negligence | Amendment would be futile because facts only support premises liability | Denial of amendment was not erroneous; amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. Mich. Multi‑King, Inc., 291 Mich. App. 98 (summary disposition standard)
- Lichon v. Am. Universal Ins. Co., 435 Mich. 408 (trial court cannot grant C(10) if plaintiff could support claim at trial)
- Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Srvs., 296 Mich. App. 685 (distinguishing premises liability from ordinary negligence)
- Adams v. Adams, 276 Mich. App. 704 (gravamen determined by reading complaint as a whole)
- Wheeler v. Central Mich. Inns, Inc., 292 Mich. App. 300 (terms like premises possessor relate to premises liability elements)
- Burnett v. Bruner, 247 Mich. App. 365 (duty owed by landowner to licensee regarding unreasonably dangerous conditions)
- Schenk v. Mercury Marine Div., Lowe Indus., 155 Mich. App. 20 (duty in ordinary negligence undertakings)
- Laier v. Kitchen, 266 Mich. App. 482 (premises liability does not preclude separate independent liability theories)