Kristopher William Robert Wilson v. Brk Inc, 938 N.W.2d 761

Wilson, a wheelchair user, fell forward and was injured when his wheelchair tipped while exiting Diamondback Saloon over a 3½-inch painted step at the door; the ramp used for handicap access leads to that same doorway.
Wilson had previously entered/exited the bar several times with assistance without incident and sued for premises negligence, gross negligence, statutory violations (barrier-free access statutes / SCCA and incorporated BOCA code), and nuisance.
Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing the condition was open and obvious, no special aspects existed, and no statutory or code violation had been shown; they also produced inspection records showing no citations.
The trial court granted summary disposition, concluding the case sounded in premises liability, the step was open and obvious with no special aspects, and statutory/code allegations did not defeat the open-and-obvious defense.
The Court of Appeals reversed as to the statutory-duty issue: it affirmed that the claim is premises liability and that the step was not a ‘‘special aspect’’ making the open-and-obvious doctrine inapplicable, but held that the open-and-obvious doctrine cannot be used to avoid a statutory duty to provide barrier-free access and remanded for further development of whether a statutory violation and a remedy exist.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nature of claim — ordinary negligence vs premises liability	Wilson: portions alleged ordinary negligence (directing handicapped patrons to the step)	Defendants: injury arises from a condition of land → premises liability	Court: claim sounds in premises liability, not ordinary negligence
Special-aspect exception (effectively unavoidable) to open-and-obvious doctrine	Wilson: step at sole entrance made hazard effectively unavoidable	Defendants: patrons could avoid visiting; no compulsion to confront hazard	Court: no special aspect; Hoffner controls — hazard was avoidable
Applicability of open-and-obvious defense where a statutory barrier-free duty is alleged	Wilson: statutory duty to provide at least one barrier-free entrance makes open-and-obvious inapplicable	Defendants: no code/statute violation shown; open-and-obvious still applies	Court: open-and-obvious cannot be used to avoid a statutory duty; remanded to develop whether a statutory violation occurred and whether a remedy exists
Sufficiency of evidence of statutory/code violation at summary-judgment stage	Wilson: submitted photographs, inspector testimony, and a Field Correction Notice indicating noncompliance	Defendants: presented inspection/approval records showing no citations; FCN unreliable	Held: genuine factual dispute exists (inspector testimony and FCN raise triable issue); summary disposition inappropriate on statutory-violation/remedy issue

Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co., 489 Mich. 157 (Michigan Supreme Court 2011) (standard of review for summary disposition)
Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich. App. 685 (Michigan Court of Appeals 2012) (distinguishing ordinary negligence and premises liability)
Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450 (Michigan Supreme Court 2012) (narrow special-aspect exceptions to open-and-obvious rule; ‘‘effectively unavoidable’’ standard)
Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich. 512 (Michigan Supreme Court 2001) (illustrative effectively unavoidable hypothetical)
Kennedy v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 274 Mich. App. 710 (Michigan Court of Appeals 2007) (open-and-obvious rule and statutory-duty exception discussion)
Jones v. Enertel, Inc., 467 Mich. 266 (Michigan Supreme Court 2002) (open-and-obvious doctrine cannot avoid statutory duties)
Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., LLP, 481 Mich. 419 (Michigan Supreme Court 2008) (lessor statutory duties and remedies discussion)
Spagnuolo v. Rudds #2, Inc., 221 Mich. App. 358 (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997) (HCRA/PDCRA claims and tort remedies analysis)