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?
Until now, Michigan has had the worst premises law in the country. Since 2001, with Lugo vs. Ameritech, Michigan citizens who suffered serious slip and fall and trip and fall injuries have been denied fair treatment by the courts. The public policy in this state for the past 22 years was terrible.
The Lugo ruling perversely was incentivizing property owners to not take reasonable steps to protect the innocent public because until last Friday they essentially had full immunity.
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 slip and fall 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 slip and fall 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 slip and fall 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) duty of the property owner; (2) breach of the duty; (3) causation; (4) injuries or harm; and (5) consideration of comparative fault.
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 Michigan Slip and Fall Lawyers 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.