Jim McAuliffe v. Lavilla Restaurant Inc
323407
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 11, 2016Background
- Plaintiff (Mcaullife) slipped/fell after being directed to use defendant La Villa's back entrance for deliveries; snow/ice and terrain contributed to the fall.
- Case on appeal to Michigan Court of Appeals; opinion is an unpublished decision with a dissent by Judge Amy Ronayne Krause.
- Majority dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claims, treating the direction to use the back entrance as not, by itself, a breach of duty and applying the open-and-obvious rule to snow/ice hazards.
- Dissent argues the majority misapplied legal rules by divorcing the act (directing delivery to back door) from the surrounding land conditions that made the direction dangerous.
- Dissent contends the business’s direction could imply an assurance of safety and that snow can conceal hazardous terrain, so the hazard may not be open and obvious or unavoidable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directing a delivery person to use a back entrance can be negligent given surrounding conditions | Direction combined with unsafe/impaired access made the act negligent; context matters | A directive alone is not a breach of duty; mere instruction does not create negligence | Majority: directing delivery to back door, by itself, is not negligence (dissent disagrees) |
| Whether snow/ice on the premises is an actionable premises defect or an open-and-obvious hazard | The hazard was partly non-snow terrain concealed by snow, so not purely open-and-obvious | Snow/ice hazards are open and obvious, barring premises liability based solely on their presence | Majority: snow/ice is open and obvious; plaintiff’s premises claim based solely on that fails (dissent argues totality may show otherwise) |
| Whether plaintiff’s actual knowledge is relevant to openness/obviousness | Plaintiff’s personal knowledge should be considered for avoidability and risk | Openness/obviousness is tested objectively; plaintiff’s subjective knowledge irrelevant | Court: openness/obviousness is an objective test; subjective knowledge irrelevant |
| Whether precedent like Eaton supports liability when one induces reliance that leads to harm | Reliance on proprietor’s direction can create a duty or implied assurance, making proprietor responsible | Older precedents are distinguishable or outdated and do not impose liability here | Majority declined to follow Eaton based on age/context; dissent would apply it to find liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler v. Central Mich. Inns, 292 Mich. App. 300 (discusses premises liability/open-and-obvious)
- Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, 486 Mich. 913 (premises-negligence vs. condition-of-land distinction)
- Steger v. Blanchard, 353 Mich. 140 (warning about applying legal rules divorced from factual context)
- Ververis v. Hartfield Lanes, 271 Mich. App. 61 (identifies snow/ice as open-and-obvious hazard)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450 (clarifies that snow/ice hazards may still support premises liability depending on circumstances)
- Novotney v. Burger King Corp., 198 Mich. App. 470 (openness/obviousness tested objectively)
- Eaton v. Winnie, 20 Mich. 156 (older authority on induced reliance and liability; cited by dissent)