It can be difficult to understand what is open and obvious. In Michigan, something small like a piece of fruit on a grocery store floor can be considered open and obvious. On the other hand, something as large as a pallet is not necessarily open and obvious.
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently provided clarity regarding the open and obvious nature of black ice which, by definition, cannot be seen. In Gaeth v TEG Central Park Place, LLC, Docket No. 34154, the appellate court was recently asked to reconsider whether black ice is open and obvious. The appellate court affirmed summary disposition holding black ice was open and obvious, essentially saying, something which cannot be seen is open and obvious.
In Gaeth, a tenant slipped and fell on black ice on the sidewalk at his apartment complex. Because of the parties’ relationship, MCL 554.139(1)(a) required the sidewalk to be fit for its intended use. The court applied the holding in Allison to the instant case. That is, the sidewalk had to be fit to be walked on, and snow and ice coverage did not render the sidewalk unfit.
Still, the tenant argued he could not see the black ice and summary disposition was improper. The tenant testified the temperatures were below freezing and there had been melting conditions the day before.
Considering the Michigan Supreme Court’s order in Janson, the appellate court found those wintry conditions, by themselves, were enough to put an average user of ordinary intelligence on alert that black ice could be present upon casual inspection.
Basically, as Michiganders, if there is a period of high temperatures which cause ice or snow melt followed by freezing temperatures, we should know black ice can form. And because of that knowledge, black ice is open and obvious.
What this means is a condition does not have to be obvious in the literal sense of the word to be considered open and obvious under the law. Sometimes the circumstances are present to alert a reasonable person of the condition without having to actually see it.
Legally speaking, then, that’s how something that cannot be seen is open and obvious.
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Premises Liability
- Retail Liability
- General Liability
- Litigation Discovery
- Civil Litigation
- Residential Liability
- Independent Medical Examinations (IME)
- Contractor Liability
- Property Liability
- Commercial Real Estate
- Open & Obvious Doctrine
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Liquor Liability
- Snow & Ice Claims
- Open & Obvious
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Commercial Liability
- Risk Management
- Auto Liability
- Judicial Estoppel
- No Fault Liability
- Trucking Liability
- Wrongful Death
- Business Risk Management
- Real Estate
- FDA Regulations
- Food Law
- Foodservice & Hospitality
- Regulatory Law
- Constructive Notice
- Governmental Immunity
- Open and Obvious Doctrine Remains Alive, but for How Long?
- Court Ruling Bans Cameras, Allows Observers for Independent Medical Exams
- Appellate Court ‘Loans’ Temporary Possessory Rights to Contractor, Allowing it to Assert Premises Liability Defenses
- Appellate Court Holds Sporting Event Rules Violations Not Necessarily Reckless Misconduct
- Warehouse Clubs Should Consider Arbitration for Member Disputes
- Truck Driver’s Bodily Injury Claim Barred by his Bankruptcy Case
- Intoxication Bars College Student’s Estate from Wrongful Death Action
- New Supreme Court Discovery Rule Places Emphasis on Proportionality Over Relevance
- Court Reinforces Principle That Landowners Generally Have no Duty to Prevent Criminal Acts
- Don't Drink and File... a Lawsuit