My little brother Evan has always been mischievous. For example, when we were kids, he once ventured into a control center located behind the secret panel of a retail store. Another time, he managed to shut off the entire plumbing system of an outdoor mall by finding just the right pump located underneath a fake boulder.
Now that he is an adult, I still wonder what duty a landowner would owe to an invitee who ventures into an area they are not authorized or expected to be? Michigan courts hold that in those situations, an invitee could be considered a trespasser.
Premises liability requires a plaintiff to prove the elements of negligence: (1) the defendant owed a duty; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) an injury proximately resulted from that breach; and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages. The specific duty owed depends on a plaintiff’s status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser at the time of the injury. A plaintiff who is on a landowner’s premises for commercial purposes is considered an invitee.
A person maintains invitee status as long as he is on the portion of the premises involved in the invitation. As the Michigan Supreme Court once held: “The plaintiff was bound to leave defendant's premises by the usual, ordinary, and customary way in which the premises are and have been departed from, provided the same be safe and in good condition, and if for his own convenience, or other reason (than defect in the usual place of departure), he leaves such way, he becomes, at best, a licensee and cannot recover for injuries from a defect outside of said way.” If the scope of the invitation is exceeded and the invitee ventures into an area without the landowner’s consent, the invitee may become a trespasser.
The only duty owed to a known trespasser is to refrain from injuring him through active negligence. Active negligence must arise from affirmative acts committed in the presence of a plaintiff, and not from the condition of the premises. Therefore, even if Evan gets injured by a secret paneled door or fake boulder the next time we go shopping, the landlord would not likely be liable.
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