*1 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S SUSAN BLACKWELL, FOR PUBLICATION
January 31, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 328929
Oakland Circuit Court DEAN FRANCHI and DEBRA FRANCHI, LC No. 14-141562-NI
Defendant-Appellee. Before: K. F. K ELLY , P.J., and G LEICHER and S HAPIRO , JJ.
K. F. K ELLY ( dissenting ).
I respectfully dissent. The relevant inquiry is not whether the step was open and obvious, but whether the dark room was open and obvious.
I agree with the majority that plaintiff was a licensee for whom defendants had an obligation to warn of hidden dangers. At the heart of this matter is what constituted the “danger” to plaintiff – the unexceptional 8-inch step or the dark room? At oral argument, plaintiff’s attorney conceded that there was absolutely nothing remarkable about the step. Counsel specifically acknowledged that it was a normal 8-inch step that, had the room been properly lit, would have been open and obvious. Plaintiff claims that the step was a danger because it was “unknown.” However, it was unknown because plaintiff purposefully entered a dark room to confront unidentified dangers. The danger was not the stairs, but the dark room itself, which could have contained a variety of other unspecified and common-place “dangers,” such as laundry baskets or toys. The fact that the room was not lit was open and obvious. Plaintiff should have realized the danger entering a dark and unknown room posed. I would affirm summary disposition in defendants’ favor.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly -1-