Seriously Injured Claimant; Summary Disposition for Defendant Reversed
Video showed two maintenance workers sequentially exiting an elevator, each wheeling a cart filled with equipment. The first cart caused a ripple in the floor mat, which was intensified by the second cart. The uneven surface of the mat was visible on the videotape. Two building occupants exited the elevator in separate trips without any difficulty after the floor mat was disturbed. The plaintiff was the third person to exit the elevator, and she tripped on the mat after taking three steps.
Three defendants were named in the lawsuit: the building owner, a company that provided maintenance services in the building, and a third entity that provided management services at the building. The defendants moved for summary disposition, which the trial court granted after hearing oral argument.
The appellate court reasoned in its reversal that:
Plaintiff alleged a claim of ordinary negligence whereby the open-and-obvious doctrine does not apply. The appellate court determined that since the injury resulted from “a condition on the land,” the case falls under premises liability law.
In regard to claims against the maintenance company, the appellate court noted that plaintiff could not raise claims on appeal that were not presented in the trial court.
One defendant asserted that it was an improper party because the technical name of the entity was stated incorrectly. The plaintiff agreed to allow the trial court to decide whether to dismiss the motion for summary disposition against this defendant, thereby waiving her right to appellate review.
The appellate court noted that there was a factual question as to whether the floor mat’s condition was open and obvious because the view of the floor mat provided by the security camera differed from the perspective of the casual observer exiting the elevator.
The trial court ruling was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
The case is Shalda v. Redico LLC, unpublished order of the Michigan Court of Appeals. Released July 29, 2021, No. 353211 in Wayne Circuit Court, LC No. 19-001183-NO.
Click on the link to read the full text of the opinion and the partial concurrence/partial dissent.
