Ronald Graves v. Kmart Corporation
334245
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- On Dec. 30, 2012, Graves slipped on a damp/icy patch outside a Kmart White Lake entrance and broke his ankle; weather was overcast with temperatures just below freezing. Photographs show a visibly damp area near the entrance.
- Witness Leah Hiter testified she observed multiple patches of ice near the entrance and alerted store staff; she also saw Graves fall.
- Kmart contracted with SPG for snow removal and ice-melt application when snow exceeded two inches or upon Kmart’s request; the contract contained indemnity and defense provisions and defined “Claims.”
- Graves sued Kmart (premises liability) alleging black ice formed from Kmart’s drainage; Kmart asserted cross-claims against SPG for contractual indemnity, breach, contribution, and duty to defend.
- The trial court denied Kmart’s summary-disposition motion (C)(10) on open-and-obvious grounds, and granted summary disposition to SPG on Kmart’s cross-claims; Kmart appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the denial as to Kmart (hazard was open and obvious; no special aspects) and affirmed the rulings for SPG (Kmart’s indemnity/defense claims fail because Graves’ allegations fall outside the contract’s definition of “Claims”).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the icy/damp condition was an open and obvious hazard excusing Kmart’s duty to warn/repair | Graves argued the ice was not reasonably discoverable by casual inspection and/or had special aspects (located at store entrance, effectively unavoidable) | Kmart argued visible dampness plus below-freezing temps and witness testimony made the hazard objectively discoverable; no special aspects existed | Court held hazard was open and obvious as a matter of law; no special aspects applied — summary disposition for Kmart reversed in their favor |
| Whether SPG must indemnify Kmart for Graves’ claim under the contract | Graves’ underlying claim implicated SPG’s conduct (plaintiff also sued SPG below) | Kmart argued the contract required SPG to indemnify Kmart for claims arising from services or acts/omissions in performance | Because the appellate holding found Kmart not liable to Graves (open-and-obvious), indemnity and contribution claims were moot; court noted Kmart’s indemnity arguments lacked merit on review |
| Whether SPG must defend Kmart under the contract despite no indemnity duty | Kmart argued §4.4 created an independent duty to defend regardless of indemnity | SPG argued the contract’s defined term “Claims” limits when defense is triggered and Graves’ allegations did not fall within that definition | Court held SPG’s duty to defend is limited to the contractually defined “Claims”; Graves’ allegations did not trigger that definition, so SPG had no duty to defend |
| Choice-of-law for contract interpretation | Kmart implicitly relied on contract’s Illinois choice-of-law clause | SPG relied on that clause to apply Illinois law | Court found no material Illinois contacts to justify applying Illinois law but noted Illinois and Michigan law were similar on dispositive points; applied Michigan law for analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (summary-disposition standard and evidentiary view in C(10) motions)
- Ghaffari v. Turner Constr. Co., 473 Mich 16 (landowner duty to invitees)
- Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc., 449 Mich 606 (invitee standard; invitor not absolute insurer)
- Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational Indus., Inc., 436 Mich 673 (rationale for open-and-obvious doctrine)
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich 512 (special aspects exception: effectively unavoidable or unreasonably high risk of severe harm)
- Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Const., Inc., 495 Mich 161 (definition of “claim” and contractual interpretation principles)