Plaintiff Must Prove Notice In A Premises Liability Claim
For a Plaintiff to succeed on a premises liability claim, that plaintiff must establish that the Defendants had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly hazardous condition. Recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals made an important ruling which helped to clarify the notice required for a plaintiff to succeed on a premises liability claim.
The case at issue arises out of injuries plaintiff sustained after his ladder slid out from under him as he was painting the defendant homeowners’ home. At the time, plaintiff was working as an independent contractor. Plaintiff claimed that the ladder slipped on a puddle of grease and water. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the homeowner defendants for failure to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the homeowner had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly hazardous condition.
A claim based on premises liability requires a plaintiff to prove four essential elements: duty, breach, causation, and harm. In a premises liability case, a landowner’s duty to a visitor depends on that visitor’s status as am invitee, licensee, or a trespasser. The parties in this case agree that plaintiff was an invitee, and as an invitee, the homeowner defendants owed plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect plaintiff from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land. A premises owner breaches its duty to an invitee when it knows or should know of a dangerous condition on the premises of which the invitee is unaware and fails to fix the defect, guard against the defect, or warn the invitee of the defect.
The allegedly dangerous condition in this case is the presence of a watery and greasy substance on the homeowner defendants’ patio. To avoid the case being dismissed, plaintiff was required to set forth specific facts establishing a genuine issue of material fact that the homeowner defendants knew about the watery and greasy substance on the patio or should have known about the substance because of its character or because of the duration of its presence. Plaintiff only offered his own testimony to prove there was a genuine issue of material fact that the homeowners knew about the slippery substance. This testimony failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Thus, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the hazard was not of such a character, or had existed for a sufficient time, that a reasonable premises possessor would have discovered it. The trial court’s summary dismissal was affirmed.
Read entire case at:
Eric Heilman v Steven Smith, et. al.
About Alexander & Angelas, P.C.
Alexander & Angelas, P.C. represents defendants in civil liability litigation across Michigan and Northern Ohio. The firm’s practice areas include insurance defense litigation, premises liability, motor carrier (trucking) defense, corporate and commercial litigation, construction defect litigation, auto negligence, insurance coverage disputes, emergency casualty response services, alternative dispute resolution, subrogation claims, workers’ compensation, employment law, and liquor liability.
Attorneys practice in all state and federal courts in Michigan, including Wayne County (Detroit), Macomb County (Mount Clemens), Oakland County (Pontiac), Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor), and Genesee County (Flint). Legal services are also provided in Northern Ohio. Since its founding in 1992, the firm has litigated over 4,000 civil cases.
A 24/7 Emergency Hotline is available (800-219-0007) for trucking and insurance company clients. When an accident requires an immediate response to protect evidence, members of the firm quickly launch an investigation with the assistance of well-qualified accident investigators, crash re-constructionists, mechanical engineers, civil evidence photographers, and independent adjusters positioned throughout Michigan and Northern Ohio.
Alexander & Angelas, P.C. measures its performance based upon three key metrics: aging of claims, indemnity expense, and legal defense costs. The firm refuses to over-litigate cases merely to increase legal fees and strives to resolve matters within one year from initial case assignment.
