Susan Blackwell v. Dean Franchi
328929
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Susan Blackwell, a social guest (licensee), was directed to place her coat in a dark coat room at defendants’ home and fell on an eight-inch step-down that was not visible on casual inspection.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing the hazard (dark room/step) was open and obvious.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants; the appeal challenges that ruling.
- The concurring opinion (Judge Gleicher) agrees with the majority that a factual question precludes summary disposition.
- Central factual dispute: whether, from the perspective of a reasonable first-time guest, the step was visible or was concealed by darkness such that a warning was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the step/drop was an open-and-obvious danger | Blackwell: the step was concealed by darkness and not observable by an ordinary user; defendants knew of hidden danger and failed to warn | Franchi: the coat room/darkness made any hazard open and obvious; no duty to warn | Reversal of summary disposition; a genuine factual dispute exists about whether the step was visible to a reasonable guest, so summary disposition improper |
| Whether darkness itself is the dangerous condition | Blackwell: darkness only concealed a dangerous condition (the step); darkness is not the operative danger | Franchi: focuses on the dark room being open/obvious rather than the hidden step | Court: Danger is the dangerous condition on the land (the unseen step); darkness may obscure visibility but is not itself the dangerous condition |
| Whether plaintiff had duty to discover hidden hazards before entering | Blackwell: plaintiff had no duty to discover an unseen step; the possessor’s duty to warn controls | Franchi: plaintiff should have been aware of the dark room and taken caution | Court: Plaintiff’s care level irrelevant to whether condition is unreasonably dangerous; failure to discover does not bar action if danger was outside open-and-obvious doctrine |
| Applicability of licensee duty to warn | Blackwell: as a licensee, defendants owed duty to warn of hidden dangers they knew of | Franchi: contends open-and-obvious negates duty to warn | Court: Where a fact question exists whether the danger was concealed, duty to warn may apply; summary disposition inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Stitt v Holland Abundant Life, 462 Mich 591 (premises possessor duty to warn licensees of hidden dangers)
- Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512 (premises liability duty relates to dangerous conditions on the land)
- Abke v Vandenberg, 239 Mich App 359 (darkness can obscure visibility so an otherwise observable hazard may not be open and obvious)
- Knight v Gulf & Western Props, Inc, 196 Mich App 119 (inadequate lighting may conceal interior hazards that are not otherwise apparent to entrant)
- Laier v Kitchen, 266 Mich App 482 (objective test: whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the danger)
- Hughes v PMG Building, Inc, 227 Mich App 1 (focus on foreseeability from plaintiff’s perspective)