Under an important new Michigan Supreme Court ruling, the Michigan slip and fall law lets residents who have been injured in slip and fall and trip and fall premises liability accidents will be able to hold negligent property owners responsible for the injuries, harms and deaths they cause.

In Kandil-Elsayed vs. F&E Oil, Inc., and Pinsky vs. Kroger Company of Michigan, the Michigan Supreme Court held that in premises liability cases where a person is injured in a slip and fall or trip and fall accident resulting from hazardous and dangerous conditions on another person’s property, the property owner owes “a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land.”

The Court found that property owners have a legal duty to protect invitees from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by dangerous or hazardous conditions of the land. This duty also includes requiring a land possessor to “anticipate harm” that may result from a seemingly open and obvious danger.

Importantly, the high court’s justices also held that “when assessing whether” a property owner “has breached their duty to take reasonable care to protect invitees from an open and obvious danger, courts should ask whether the possessor ‘should anticipate the harm.’”

This is a landmark ruling for Michigan slip and fall law. The justices emphasized in their ruling that this is not a new law, but rather it marks a long-overdue return to the state of the law in this state and represents “decades of precedent prior to” the Michigan Supreme Court’s controversial and roundly criticized ruling in Lugo vs. Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512, 516-517; 629 NW2d 384 (2001).

How bad was Lugo and our law up until just last Friday?  

The previous Michigan slip and fall law allowed property owners to avoid any responsibility to the innocent people whom they invited onto their property and who subsequently suffered serious injuries from dangerous conditions on the land.

These two cases help put an end to that. No longer can property owners avoid any legal responsibility by blaming injured victims for not avoiding dangerous conditions and hidden dangers that they knew nothing about.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in Kandil-Elsayed vs. F&E Oil, Inc., and Pinsky vs. Kroger Company of Michigan means Michigan will no longer be a dangerous outlier from the rest of the nation. This ruling reinstates the public policy of requiring property owners to take reasonable steps to keep people safe.   

Everyone in Michigan is now safer because of this ruling.

The high cost of slip and fall accidents should be paid by negligent property owners, not taxpayers

Of course, the insurance industry is already complaining about the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, claiming it’s going to raise costs. But that’s the insurance industry’s go-to, boogey-man response to any legal development that will better protect the lives, health and welfare of citizens.  

Conspicuously absent from the insurance industry’s predictions of doom and gloom is an answer to this significant question:

Who paid for the medical treatment for the thousands of slip and fall victims whose legitimate claims against negligent or careless property owners were wrongly thrown out under Lugo’s version of the slip and fall law?

The answer is simple and exactly what you’d expect: We did. The taxpayers paid.

When people who were hurt couldn’t sue because the Michigan slip and fall law at the time effectively granted full immunity to the responsible store owners and property owners, the millions and millions of dollars in medical care did not just go away. Instead, the enormous bill for all the medical care and treatment got shifted onto all of us, as taxpayers. 

Under Lugo’s version of the law, we were the ones subsidizing these negligent property owners because the medical costs and disability costs were passed onto all of us as taxpayers to pay, whether that be Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security Disability, when these injured victims were turned away from the courts under Lugo. 

Now that the Michigan slip and fall law has been reinstated to what it was in the “decades of precedent prior” to Lugo, the people who pay are the ones who should be paying i.e., the negligent and careless store owners and property owners.

Elements of cases under the Michigan Slip and Fall law

In Michigan, when people are injured in a premises liability cases, the slip and fall law requires many of the same elements as are required in a general negligence case: (1) right to be on the property; (2) a hazardous condition existed; (3) property owner’s knowledge (4) property owner’s negligence; (5) causation; (6) injuries and damages; and (7) consideration of comparative fault.

Right to be on property

Under Michigan slip and fall law, one of the key elements in establishing a claim is proving that you had a legal right to be on the property, because property owners owe a duty of care only to those lawfully present.This means that to hold a property owner responsible for your injuries, you must generally be classified as an invitee, licensee, or sometimes a tenant. Invitees, such as customers in a store or patrons at a restaurant, are owed the highest level of care, requiring the owner to maintain safe conditions and warn of known hazards. Licensees, like social guests, are owed a lesser duty, and trespassers generally have very limited rights unless specific exceptions apply.

Establishing that you had the legal right to be on the property helps demonstrate that the property owner had a duty to protect you from dangerous conditions. If you were lawfully on the premises and were injured due to a hazard the owner knew or should have known about, you may have a valid injury claim. Conversely, if you were trespassing or otherwise not permitted on the property, the property owner’s liability may be limited or nonexistent. In Michigan, proving your right to be on the property is therefore a foundational step in recovering compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering resulting from an accident.

Hazardous condition existed

Under Michigan slip and fall law, a critical element of any claim is proving that a hazardous condition existed on the property. Property owners are required to maintain reasonably safe premises for those who are lawfully present, such as customers, tenants, or guests. If a dangerous condition—like wet floors, icy walkways, broken stairs, uneven surfaces, or debris—is present and poses a risk of injury, the property owner may be held liable if they knew or should have known about it. Simply put, without a hazardous condition, there is no basis for a slip and fall claim under Michigan premises liability law.

It is not enough for an accident to occur; the hazardous condition must be shown to have contributed directly to the injury. Evidence such as photographs of the area, witness statements, incident reports, or video surveillance can help establish the presence of the danger. Additionally, the property owner’s awareness—or their failure to take reasonable steps to correct the hazard—plays a significant role in determining liability. By documenting the unsafe condition and the circumstances of your fall, you strengthen your case for compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering under Michigan slip and fall law.

Property owner’s knowledge

Under Michigan slip and fall law, a property owner’s knowledge of a hazardous condition is a key element in establishing a claim. To hold an owner liable for an injury, it must generally be shown that they knew—or should have known—about the dangerous condition that caused the fall. This includes conditions that existed for a sufficient amount of time that the owner could have discovered and corrected them through reasonable care. If the owner had actual knowledge of the hazard, or if it was obvious enough that they should have been aware of it, their failure to address it can form the basis of liability.

Proving the property owner’s knowledge often requires evidence such as incident reports, witness statements, photographs, or maintenance records showing the condition existed prior to the accident. Under Michigan slip and fall law, demonstrating that the owner was aware—or reasonably should have been aware—of the hazard strengthens your claim and increases the likelihood of recovering compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Without showing this element of knowledge, it is difficult to hold the owner responsible for an accident related injury.

Property owner’s negligence

Under Michigan slip and fall law, property owner negligence is a central element in establishing a claim. To succeed, a plaintiff must show that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the property, which directly led to the hazardous condition causing the injury. Negligence can take many forms, including failing to clean up spills, ignoring icy or wet surfaces, neglecting broken stairs, or not warning visitors about dangerous areas. Simply put, if the property owner acted reasonably and took steps to prevent accidents, they may not be liable; however, failing to do so can form the basis of a valid claim.

Proving negligence often involves gathering evidence that shows the property owner knew, or should have known, about the dangerous condition and did not take appropriate action to remedy it. This can include photographs of the hazard, witness statements, maintenance logs, and incident reports. Establishing negligence is crucial because it demonstrates that the property owner breached their duty of care, which is required under Michigan slip and fall law. When negligence is clearly shown, it strengthens the case for compensation, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Causation

Under Michigan slip and fall law, causation is a crucial element of any claim. It requires a clear connection between the property owner’s negligence and the injury you sustained. In other words, you must show that the hazardous condition on the property—such as a wet floor, icy walkway, or broken stair—directly caused your accident and the resulting injuries. Without establishing this link, even if the owner was negligent or a dangerous condition existed, a claim may not succeed because the injury cannot be clearly attributed to the property owner’s actions or inactions.

Proving causation typically involves medical records, photographs of the scene, witness statements, and sometimes expert testimony that demonstrates how the accident occurred and the resulting harm. It is important to document the immediate effects of the fall, such as pain, physical limitations, or medical treatment, to show that the injury was a direct consequence of the hazardous condition. By establishing causation under Michigan slip and fall law, you strengthen your case and increase the likelihood of recovering compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Injuries and damages

Under Michigan slip and fall law, injuries and damages are essential elements of a claim. Even if a property owner was negligent or a hazardous condition existed, a claim cannot succeed unless the accident caused actual harm. Injuries can range from minor bruises and sprains to more serious conditions such as fractures, back injuries, or head trauma. The extent of these injuries helps determine the scope of damages you may be entitled to, including medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and in some cases, future care costs. Without demonstrable injuries, there is no legal basis for recovering compensation under Michigan premises liability law.

Proving damages typically requires thorough documentation of your medical treatment, hospital bills, rehabilitation costs, and any ongoing treatment or therapy. Additionally, evidence of lost income, reduced earning capacity, and the impact on your daily life can help establish the non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering or emotional distress. By clearly documenting both the injuries sustained and the resulting damages, you strengthen your claim and improve the likelihood of obtaining fair compensation for your losses under Michigan slip and fall law.

Comparative negligence

Under Michigan slip and fall law, comparative negligence is an important element that can affect the outcome of a claim. Michigan follows a modified comparative fault system, which means that an injured person can recover damages only if they are less than 51% at fault for the accident. If you are found to share some responsibility for your accident—for example, if you were not paying attention, wearing inappropriate footwear, or ignoring warning signs—your compensation may be reduced in proportion to your percentage of fault. However, if you are determined to be 51% or more at fault, you may not recover any damages at all.

Proving comparative negligence requires a careful review of the circumstances surrounding the fall. Evidence such as photos, witness statements, and expert testimony can help show the property owner’s primary responsibility for the hazardous condition while also addressing any factors that may be attributed to your own actions. Understanding and properly applying Michigan’s comparative negligence rules is crucial for maximizing recovery, as even partial fault does not automatically eliminate your right to compensation. By working with our experienced and trusted slip and fall attorneys, you can ensure that your share of fault is minimized and that your damages are calculated fairly under Michigan law.

Who decides cases under the Michigan Slip and Fall law?

In Michigan, the question of whether a property owner owes a duty to a slip and fall or trip and fall victim is an issue of law that is decided by a judge. However, a jury gets to decide questions of fact such as whether a property owner has breached his or her duty and/or whether a victim has any comparative fault.

What is a property owner’s duty to invitees under Michigan law?

A property owner or land possess has a “duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land.” (See Williams vs. Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc, 429 Mich 495, 499; 418 NW2d 381 (1988))

Who is an invitee under the Michigan slip and fall law?

Under the Michigan slip and fall law, an “invitee” is generally a person who is invited to enter onto another person’s property for business purposes. There is an “implied representation, assurance, or understanding that reasonable care has been used” to make premises “safe” for the invitee. (Stitt vs. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591, 597; 614 NW2d 88 (2000)

Breach of a property owner’s duty under Michigan law

A breach of property owner’s duty occurs when the property owner fails to exercise the reasonable care necessary to protect invitees on his or her property from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the law. One factor is whether the condition was open and obvious.

For purposes of determining whether a property owner breached his or her duty to protect an invitee from an open and obvious danger, it is relevant to inquire whether the owner should have nevertheless anticipated harm from the dangerous condition.

Under the Michigan slip and fall law, a dangerous condition is deemed “open and obvious” if it is “reasonable to expect that an average person with ordinary intelligence would have discovered it upon casual inspection.”

What is comparative fault under the Michigan slip and fall law?

In Michigan, comparative fault is a legal doctrine whereby a slip and fall victim’s pain and suffering compensation and money damages may be reduced by the victim’s percentage of fault for contributing to or causing the accident. Unlike contributory negligence, a victim’s fault does not bar all recovery.

It is important to note that the open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition – and the actions taken by a slip and fall victim relative to the condition – may be considered in determining the existence or extent of a victim’s comparative fault.

How does the Michigan slip and fall law handle snow and ice accidents?

The Michigan slip and fall law provides that property owners owe a duty to invitees on their property to take reasonable care to protect them against “the hazards of the natural accumulation of ice and snow on the property.”

Factors to consider in determining whether a property owner breached his or her duty, i.e., failed to address the ice and snow on the property, include:

• What time did it start snowing?
• Had the snow stopped at the time of the victim’s slip and fall?
• What safety measures did the property owner take to protect invitees like the victim?
• Were the measures reasonable?
• How long after the accumulation of snow and ice did the property owner take measures to reduce the hazardous condition?
• Was it a reasonable amount of time?

Overruling Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc

In overruling Lugo – which single-handedly is to blame for many thousands of legitimate slip and fall and trip and fall cases being wrongly thrown out of the court –the justices in Kandil-Elsayed vs. F&E Oil, Inc., and Pinsky vs. Kroger Company of Michigan said they were doing so in two respects:

“First, we overrule Lugo’s decision to make the open and obvious danger doctrine a part of a land possessor’s duty. Rather, we hold that the open and obvious nature of a condition is relevant to breach and the parties’ comparative fault. Second, we overrule the special-aspects doctrine and hold that when a land possessor should anticipate the harm that results from an open and obvious condition, despite its obviousness, the possessor is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care.”

Injured in a slip and fall accident in Michigan? Call now

If you or a loved one has been seriously injured as a result of a slip and fall accident in Michigan and have questions about the law and a potential slip and fall lawsuit, call now or fill out our contact form for a no-cost, no obligation, free consultation with one of our experienced slip and fall lawyers . The attorneys at FallLaw.com are here to help you and your family fight to get the best possible legal settlement for you and your family. They will discuss your legal rights under the to pain and suffering compensation and to money damages to help you and your family pay your medical bills and make up for the wages you’ve lost because your injuries have disabled you from working.