Lymon v. Freedland
314 Mich. App. 746
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff (home health aide) slipped on an ice-covered, steep driveway while arriving for an overnight shift to care for an elderly patient with dementia and Parkinson’s disease.
- Plaintiff parked on the street because the driveway was difficult to traverse; she fell partway up the driveway, later sustaining fractured tibia and fibula requiring surgery and rehabilitation.
- Several witnesses (co-worker, employer, boyfriend) described the driveway as iced over and steep; some witnesses testified they walked on the adjacent snow-covered yard to avoid the driveway, but foliage partly obstructed that alternate route.
- Plaintiff sued the homeowners (defendants) for negligent maintenance of the driveway as a premises liability claim; she was an invitee performing paid work for the patient.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing the icy condition was open and obvious and no ‘‘special aspects’’ existed (not unreasonably dangerous nor effectively unavoidable); the trial court denied the motion.
- Parties stipulated to enter judgment pending appeal; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding a factual question existed whether special aspects made the open-and-obvious hazard actionable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether icy driveway was an open-and-obvious hazard that bars recovery | Lymon: although open/obvious, special aspects (steep slope, ice, water from eaves) made it unreasonably dangerous or effectively unavoidable | Freedland: ice/snow are open-and-obvious; no special aspects — risk not unusually severe and alternate route existed | Court: Ice is open-and-obvious, but triable issue exists whether special aspects (effectively unavoidable given plaintiff’s duty to care for patient and obstructed/slippery alternate route) preclude summary disposition |
| Whether condition presented an unreasonably dangerous risk (high likelihood/severity) | Lymon: steep, iced driveway with water run-off created high severity risk of serious injury | Freedland: presence of ice/snow alone does not meet Lugo standard for substantial risk of death/severe injury | Court: Ice/snow did not meet the heightened Lugo standard here; no unreasonably dangerous special aspect established as matter of law |
| Whether condition was effectively unavoidable | Lymon: as caregiver compelled to appear, she had no practical choice to avoid the hazardous approach; alternate route was obstructed/unsafe | Freedland: plaintiff could have used alternate yard route or declined to enter; Hoffner distinguishes contractual use from compulsion | Court: Genuine factual dispute whether plaintiff was compelled and whether the yard provided a viable avoidance route — triable issue for jury |
| Summary disposition standard applied | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court applied de novo review and construed evidence in favor of nonmovant, finding a genuine issue of material fact and affirmed denial of summary disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450 (2012) (supreme court framework: open-and-obvious doctrine with narrow ‘‘special aspects’’ exceptions including unreasonably dangerous and effectively unavoidable hazards)
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich. 512 (2001) (sets high bar for ‘‘unreasonably dangerous’’ — condition must present substantial risk of death or severe injury)
- Perkoviq v. Delcor Homes–Lake Shore Pointe, Ltd., 466 Mich. 11 (2002) (ice/snow on sloped surfaces generally do not constitute unreasonably dangerous conditions)