Watts v. Michigan Multi-King, Inc.
291 Mich. App. 98
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Plaintiff slipped on a wet floor at defendant's Northville, Michigan restaurant after the floor had been mopped.
- Plaintiff did not perceive the damp floor before her fall and testified there were no visible spills or signs at the time.
- An employee apologized, stated they had just mopped, and an incident report noted wet floor signs were present, though plaintiff denied seeing signs.
- Plaintiff suffered hip contusions and a lumbar strain, treated with pain medication and medical visits thereafter.
- The trial court granted summary disposition under the open and obvious doctrine; plaintiff appealed asserting a genuine issue of material fact existed.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the hazard was not shown to be obviously discoverable on casual inspection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the floor condition was open and obvious as a matter of law | Plaintiff argues damp floor was not observable on casual inspection | Defendant contends the floor was openly wet and thus obvious | Open and obvious not established; issue for remand |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist about visibility of the damp floor | Plaintiff did not notice dampness before falling | Floor condition was something a casual observer would notice if clearly wet | Genuine issue exists; summary disposition improper |
| Whether Sidorowicz supports granting summary dismissal here | Sidorowicz does not authorize dismissal where wet condition is not visible to a reasonable observer | Sidorowicz supports treating certain hazards as open and obvious | Sidorowicz not controlling; cannot justify dismissal when wet condition not visibly discoverable |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich 512 (2001) (premises liability open and obvious doctrine requires discoverable hazard)
- O’Donnell v. Garasic, 259 Mich App 569 (2003) (open and obvious depends on whether reasonable person discovers the danger on casual inspection)
- Bragan v. Symanzik, 263 Mich App 324 (2004) (limits open and obvious analysis to genuine issues of material fact)