Travis Klinert v. D L Storage Inc, 331016

Minor Travis Klinert was injured while interacting with an automatic gate at D L Storage; his mother (plaintiff) sued for premises liability.
Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); the trial court granted the motion and plaintiff appealed.
Central legal question: Travis’s status on the property (invitee, licensee, or trespasser), which determines the duty owed.
Plaintiff argued Travis was an invitee (via a friend with an access code) or at least a licensee; alternatively, she invoked the attractive-nuisance doctrine for child trespassers.
Defendant argued Travis was a trespasser and that there was no evidence defendant knew or should have known children were likely to trespass or that the gate posed an unreasonable, concealed risk.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: Travis was a trespasser, and the attractive-nuisance doctrine did not apply because the record lacked evidence that defendant knew or should have known children were likely to trespass at the gate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Visitor status on property	Travis was an invitee because he entered via a friend who had an access code (implying permission)	No commercial purpose or invitation supporting invitee or licensee status; Travis lacked any express/implied permission	Travis was a trespasser — status is a question of law and record shows no commercial-purpose visit or implied public permission
Invitee classification test	Invitation by a code-holder converts visitor to invitee	Invitee status requires visit tied to commercial purpose (Stitt)	Not an invitee: mere access code or friend’s presence does not establish commercial-purpose invitation
Licensee via implied permission	Friend’s access amounted to implied permission for Travis	No evidence that public/customary use or owner acquiescence existed to create implied permission	Not a licensee: no evidence of known/customary public use or acquiescence (distinguished from Pippin)
Attractive-nuisance doctrine	Gate is a dangerous artificial condition; witnesses said children played on it previously, so defendant should have known children were likely to trespass	No evidence defendant knew or had reason to know children were likely to trespass at that location; no showing of all Restatement §339 factors	Doctrine inapplicable: record lacks sufficient evidence defendant knew/should have known children were likely to trespass and of the requisite notice of danger

Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591 (Mich. 2000) (defines invitee/licensee/trespasser and holds invitee status requires commercial purpose)
Bragan v. Symanzik, 263 Mich. App. 324 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (applies attractive-nuisance doctrine to known child trespassers at a commercial recreational site)
Rand v. Knapp Shoe Stores, Inc., 178 Mich. App. 735 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989) (sets out Restatement §339 factors and requires evidence defendant knew or should have known children would trespass)
McLean v. Dearborn, 302 Mich. App. 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review and evidence appraisal on MCR 2.116(C)(10))
Pippin v. Atallah, 245 Mich. App. 136 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (implied permission can arise from known, customary public use of property)