Sanders v. Perfecting Church, 303 Mich. App. 1

On July 8, 2007, Sanders slipped on motor oil in the church parking lot and filed suit alleging she was an invitee and the church failed to inspect for hazards.
Defendant contended Sanders was a licensee and that no duty existed under the open and obvious danger doctrine, regardless of invitee status.
The trial court initially held there was a factual question about whether the oil was open and obvious and denied summary disposition; it also found Sanders was a licensee as a matter of law.
Sanders moved to have the question of invitee vs licensee submitted to a jury; after a hearing, the court denied that request and sua sponte granted dismissal in favor of defendant as to licensee status.
The issue on appeal centers on whether Sanders’s status was licensee or invitee, which determines the landowner’s duty to warn or inspect.
The majority concluded Sanders was a licensee because the church’s primary purpose was religious services, with only a minimal and ancillary commercial aspect (café meals).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was summary disposition correct on Sanders’s status as invitee or licensee?	Sanders contends material fact exists on invitee status.	Defendant asserts Sanders was a licensee with no duty to inspect or warn.	No genuine issue; Sanders was a licensee.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of Sanders’s status?	Status could be submitted to a jury as invitee vs licensee.	Reconsideration properly denied since no genuine invitee status existed.	No abuse; denial affirmed.
Did the court err in denying leave to amend to add medical malpractice and HIPAA claims?	Amendment should be allowed for new claims discovered after incident.	Malpractice claim was barred by statute of limitations and amendment would be futile.	Trial court did not abuse; amendment futile as to malpractice; HIPAA/unauthorized practice claims abandoned.
Should the motion to compel discovery be addressed given the status?	Discovery should be compelled unrelated to status.	Issue was moot because Sanders was a licensee as a matter of law.	Moot; decline to address.

Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591 (2000) (defines invitee vs licensee and essential commercial purpose for invitee status)
Benton v Dart Props Inc, 270 Mich App 437 (2006) (premises liability elements and duty standards)
Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446 (1999) (summary disposition standards under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
Dalley v Dykema Gossett PLLC, 287 Mich App 296 (2010) (summary disposition standard: review of affidavits and documentary evidence)
Cuddington v United Health Servs, Inc, 298 Mich App 264 (2012) (recognizes use of documentary evidence in 2.116(C)(10) analysis)