Kathryn Matteson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
495 F. App'x 689
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Matteson slipped on a clear substance in Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport while walking between moving walkways.
- District court granted summary judgment to Northwest Airlines, holding the hazard was open and obvious as a matter of law.
- Matteson, McGrath, Meiners witnessed no spill before the fall; substance visible only after the fall.
- Airport staff and bystanders noticed spill after Matteson’s fall; towels were used to clean the area.
- Some witnesses described the substance as clear or light green; cleaning crews eventually addressed the spill.
- Court reviews open-and-obvious doctrine under Michigan law and reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the spill an open-and-obvious hazard as a matter of law? | Matteson argues the hazard was not obvious. | Northwest contends the spill was open and obvious. | No; material facts remain for jury to decide. |
| Were there genuine issues about whether the hazard had special aspects? | Special aspects could render the hazard unreasonably dangerous. | Even with openness, no special aspects shown. | Remand to determine if special aspects exist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. 2001) (open-and-obvious duty limitations; special aspects concept)
- Novotney v. Burger King Corp., 499 N.W.2d 379 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (casual inspection standard for open-and-obvious hazards)
- Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc., 537 N.W.2d 185 (Mich. 1995) (special aspects in stair/ordinary occurrences framework)
- Snyder v. Jack’s Fruit Market, 1997 WL 33354547 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (discretion in open-and-obvious evaluation in store setting)
- Kennedy v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 737 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (puddle/grape residue as open-and-obvious example; distractions not always decisive)