Zouhair Hakim v. Detroit Entertainment LLC
329006
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Zouhair Hakim slipped on a patch of snow-covered ice on the sidewalk outside MotorCity Casino Hotel after leaving the covered valet area to meet a tow truck on Feb. 1, 2014.
- Weather that evening included snow, mist, and freezing rain; surveillance video showed snow accumulations and a sheen on the sidewalk consistent with ice.
- Plaintiff ate and gambled inside the casino while waiting for the tow truck; he exited through the VIP/valet door when the truck arrived and slipped a few feet outside the covered area.
- Plaintiff sued for premises liability, negligence, and nuisance, alleging the sidewalk condition was dangerous.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing the condition was open and obvious and lacked any special aspects.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sidewalk condition was open and obvious | Hakim argued the icy patch caused his fall and was not subject to summary disposition because facts were disputed | MotorCity argued the snow/ice was objectively discoverable on casual inspection (open and obvious) | Court: condition was open and obvious as a matter of law |
| Whether any "special aspects" of the hazard existed (unreasonably dangerous) | Hakim contended the condition was particularly dangerous | MotorCity argued the ice was a routine winter hazard, not uniquely hazardous | Court: not unreasonably dangerous — ordinary winter hazard |
| Whether any "special aspects" made the hazard effectively unavoidable | Hakim argued he was compelled to confront the ice to reach the tow truck | MotorCity argued alternative routes/choices were available (e.g., meeting under the covered garage) | Court: not effectively unavoidable — plaintiff had alternatives |
| Whether summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) was appropriate | Hakim argued genuine issues of fact remained | MotorCity argued reasonable minds could not differ after viewing evidence in plaintiff's favor | Court: summary disposition proper; no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (2012) (defines open-and-obvious rule and the "special aspects" exception)
- Slaughter v. Blarney Castle Oil Co., 281 Mich App 474 (2008) (applies open-and-obvious to snow/ice and discusses black-ice limits)
- Royce v. Chatwell Club Apartments, 276 Mich App 389 (2007) (holds hazard of snow and ice is open and obvious)
- Corey v. Davenport College of Business (On Remand), 251 Mich App 1 (2002) (recognizes visibly snowy/icy steps as open and obvious)
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich 512 (2001) (defines "unreasonably dangerous" special aspect)
- Laier v. Kitchen, 266 Mich App 482 (2005) (distinguishes premises liability from ordinary negligence)
- Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs., 296 Mich App 685 (2012) (clarifies when claims sound in premises liability)