Shirley Metzler v. Gsm America Inc
328778
Mich. Ct. App.Feb 2, 2017Background
- Shirley and Melvin Metzler (invitees) visited a store on defendants’ property; Shirley exited the store and tripped on an elevated portion of a sidewalk abutting a red brick paver entrance, injuring her finger.
- Weather was clear and Shirley testified she had no trouble seeing where she was going.
- The elevated sidewalk produced a distinct change in elevation and color where the red brick pavers met the concrete sidewalk; a photograph in the record shows the contrast.
- A pillar near the store entrance partially interrupted the sight line between the doorway and the sidewalk area where Shirley tripped.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition; the trial court granted the motion and the Metzl ers appealed only the premises-liability ruling concerning whether the condition was open and obvious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the elevated sidewalk was an open and obvious danger | Metzler: the slight elevation made the hazard not discoverable on casual inspection | Defendants: the elevation and color contrast were readily observable by a reasonable person | Court: The elevation and color contrast made the condition open and obvious; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether the pillar’s location created a disputed issue of fact by concealing the hazard | Metzler: the pillar blocked visibility so a reasonable person might not discover the hazard before tripping | Defendants: the pillar was slender and did not entirely obstruct view; reasonable person would see the elevation when walking around it | Court: Even accounting for the pillar, a reasonable person in Metzler’s position would have seen the elevation; pillar did not create a triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Slaughter v. Blarney Castle Oil Co., 281 Mich App 474 (2008) (objective test for open and obvious condition: whether an average user would discover the danger on casual inspection)
- Price v. Kroger Co., 284 Mich App 496 (2009) (view-obstructing objects can create a fact question about open-and-obvious hazards depending on size, location, and visibility impediment)
- Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich App 685 (2012) (landowner duty to invitees and exclusion for open and obvious dangers)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (summary-disposition standard under MCR 2.116(C)(10))