Property owners in Michigan have long enjoyed the protection from liability for hazardous conditions on their property that are considered “open and obvious.” However, recent changes in Michigan premises liability law have shifted this landscape.
Understanding the Open and Obvious Doctrine
The “open and obvious” doctrine, which has been a cornerstone of premises liability law in Michigan, stated that property owners had no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger. Essentially, if a hazard was considered open and obvious, property owners were not held liable for injuries resulting from it. This doctrine was based on the idea that an average person with ordinary intelligence would have discovered the hazard upon casual inspection.
However, opponents of the open and obvious doctrine argued that it was inconsistent with Michigan’s comparative negligence framework and essentially created a contributory negligence scenario. They believed that cases should be allowed to go to a jury, and a party’s damages should be reduced by their percentage of fault. This argument gained traction, leading to the reconsideration of the open and obvious doctrine by the Michigan Supreme Court.
The Shift in Premises Liability Law
In a monumental shift, the Michigan Supreme Court adopted the arguments of the opponents of the open and obvious doctrine. The Court held that the open and obvious nature of a condition is relevant to breach of duty and comparative fault, rather than being part of a land possessor’s duty. Additionally, the Court overruled the special aspects doctrine, stating that a land possessor is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care even if a hazard is open and obvious.
This change in law means that fewer motions for summary disposition will be granted in premises liability cases. It shifts the open and obvious nature of a condition from acting as a shield for the defense to a sword for the plaintiff. As a result, property owners may face increased defense litigation costs and potential insurance coverage disputes.
Implications for Property Owners
The impact of the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling is still being assessed, but it is expected to have far-reaching implications on premises liability cases. Property owners need to be aware of these changes and take appropriate steps to protect themselves against potential liabilities. Here are some key implications for property owners to consider:
1. Increased Likelihood of Lawsuits
With the open and obvious doctrine no longer serving as a barrier to lawsuits, property owners may see an increase in the number of cases filed. It is more likely that insurers will choose to pay settlements to avoid the expense of going to trial, leading to a rise in settlement negotiations.
2. Shift in the Duty of Care
Property owners now have a duty to exercise reasonable care even if a hazard is open and obvious. This means that they should anticipate the harm that could result from such conditions and take appropriate measures to remove or repair the danger. Failing to do so may result in liability for any injuries that occur on the property.
3. Potential Insurance Coverage Disputes
Insurance policies should be carefully reviewed to understand the extent of the policy holder’s duty to maintain the insured property. If a hazard is open and obvious and could be anticipated, insurers may seek to deny coverage if the policy requires the insured to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Property owners should review their coverage documents and discuss any potential exclusions with their insurance providers.
4. Increased Defense Litigation Costs
With the open and obvious doctrine no longer providing a strong defense, property owners may face increased defense litigation costs. Cases that would have been dismissed at the summary disposition stage may now proceed to trial, requiring property owners to invest more resources in their defense.
5. Importance of Regular Inspections
To mitigate potential risks and demonstrate reasonable care, property owners should conduct regular inspections of their premises. Identifying and addressing open and obvious hazards in a timely manner can help prevent accidents and minimize the chances of liability.
The changes in Michigan premises liability law have significant implications for property owners. With the open and obvious doctrine no longer providing a strong defense, property owners must now exercise reasonable care and take proactive measures to ensure the safety of their premises. Regular inspections, proper maintenance, and understanding the terms of insurance coverage are crucial in mitigating potential risks. By staying informed and taking appropriate actions, property owners can navigate the evolving legal landscape and protect themselves from liability.
