Wheeler v. Central Michigan Inns, Inc.
292 Mich. App. 300
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Domonique Wheeler, age five, died by drowning at defendant Comfort Inn’s pool during a family gathering for his birthday.
- LaToya Wheeler, as personal representative, sued for wrongful death, nuisance, and loss of consortium after the incident.
- The pool ranged from 3 feet at the shallow end to 5 feet in the middle; no lifeguard was present and signage indicated as much.
- There were no staff surveilling the pool area; guests were informed to stay in shallow areas, though a flotation device was available nearby.
- LaToya watched the other children and her infant; Domonique disappeared from view and was found at the bottom of the pool after being underwater for 1–5 minutes.
- Emergency responders and hotel personnel attempted resuscitation; an AED was attempted but operator unfamiliarity hindered use; health department inspection found mostly compliant with some issues and advised lifelines, which were not required due to depth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to supervise minor guest peace by premises owner | Wheeler argues defendant had a duty to supervise due to guest status and minor presence. | Comfort Inn had no duty to supervise children of guests where a parent is present and no voluntary duty assumed. | No duty to supervise under these circumstances; open/obvious danger doctrine inapplicable to ordinary negligence. |
| Open and obvious danger doctrine applying to negligence claim | Doctrine does not apply to ordinary negligence and parents’ supervision is insufficient to revoke duty. | Open and obvious danger bars the claim as a premises-liability duty issue. | Open and obvious doctrine does not apply to the ordinary negligence claim asserted; no duty to supervise. |
| Premises liability vs ordinary negligence framework | Claim premised on negligence with heightened care for child invitees notwithstanding parents’ presence. | Case is governed by premises-liability concepts; defendant owed no duty to supervise. | Court treated action as ordinary negligence; premises-liability theories not controlling in this context. |
| Was there a voluntary duty to supervise minor guests? | Plaintiff implied defendant voluntarily assumed supervisory role via pool setup and lack of lifeguard. | No voluntary duty established; mother was present to supervise Domonique. | No voluntary duty by defendant to supervise Domonique. |
| Reliance on Woodman v Kera for duty analysis | Woodman supports heightened duty to children. | Woodman applies to premises liability; plaintiff’s claim is ordinary negligence. | Woodman’s premises-liability rationale not controlling; court rejected application to this ordinary-negligence claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodman v Kera, LLC, 280 Mich App 125 (2008) (premises-liability duty to supervise minor invitees)
- Bradford v Feeback, 149 Mich App 67 (1986) (no duty to supervise children of guests; public policy against imposing such duty)
- Stopczynski v Woodcox, 258 Mich App 226 (2003) (duty to supervise minors only when unaccompanied or duty voluntarily assumed)
- Pigeon v Radloff, 215 Mich App 438 (1996) (dissent cited regarding supervisory duty; no precedential force per later rulings)
- Kreiner v Yezdbick, 22 Mich App 581 (1970) (premises-related duty in context of invitee safety)
- Sherry v East Suburban Football League, 292 Mich App 23 (2011) (recreational organizations may bear duty for supervision of minors when appropriate)