Tyrone Jones v. (No First Name) Jaman, 369203

Plaintiff, a door-to-door ADT salesman, approached the defendant's home to leave a flyer; the defendant was unaware of his visit.
Plaintiff exited using the front steps when his leg buckled, allegedly due to the absence of a handrail, causing him to fall.
It was daylight, and the conditions were neither wet nor icy.
Defendant had recently purchased the home but was not residing there at the time.
The trial court granted summary disposition to defendant, ruling plaintiff was a trespasser and owed limited duty.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing he was not a trespasser and that summary disposition was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Status on Premises	Jones was a licensee, not a trespasser, with implied consent to approach the door.	Plaintiff was a trespasser, so owed a limited duty.	Jones was a licensee due to implied consent.
Applicability of Summary Disposition	There were material factual disputes; summary judgment improper.	No factual disputes; summary disposition warranted.	Genuine issues of fact exist; summary judgment reversed.
Duties Owed	As a licensee, owed reasonable care regarding property dangers.	Only owed duty not to willfully injure a trespasser.	Appropriate licensee duties must be considered on remand.
Effect of Defendant’s Notice	Owner’s prior notice of entry not required for implied license.	Lack of notice meant no consent/license to be on property.	Notice not required for implied license to approach door.

Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591 (definition and duties for trespassers and licensees)
Pippin v. Atallah, 245 Mich App 136 (implied versus express consent for licensee status)
Kelsey v. Lint, 322 Mich App 364 (public’s implied license to approach front doors)
Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich App 685 (premises liability basis)
Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., 512 Mich 95 (elements and duties in premises liability actions)