If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

CHRISTINE SOAVE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

May 19, 2022

v No. 357196

Macomb Circuit Court

BARNES REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC, LC No. 2019-003032-NO

Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff,

and

BELLE TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., doing 

business as BELLE TIRE, 

Defendant/Cross-Defendant-Appellee,

and

BACKER LANDSCAPING, INC.,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/CrossPlaintiff-Appellee,

and

PREMIER LAWN CARE AND SNOW 

REMOVAL, LLC,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant.

Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and K. F. KELLY and PATEL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
-2-

Christine Soave slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk as she walked from a Belle Tire store 

to her parked car. She sued four defendants asserting claims of premises liability, negligence, and 

nuisance. Soave dismissed her claims against one defendant and the circuit court granted summary 

disposition in favor of the remaining three. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Soave visited a Belle Tire store in Roseville on a cold, snowy day in November 2018. The 

store’s surveillance video reveals ice in places on the driveway leading to and from the store’s 

entrance, and a dusting of snow on the nearby grass. Soave testified that when she entered the 

store there was snow on the driveway, but “there wasn’t any ice.” Forty-five minutes later when 

she began walking on the “same path” back to her car, Soave fell on a “big spot” of ice. She 

admitted that there was a “dry area” on the path back to her car, but she did not see it because a 

man was standing in front of her and blocked her view. During discovery, Soave established that 

Belle Tire’s manager had ordered an employee to spread salt over the “approach” sidewalk that 

morning before the store opened. 

Soave’s amended complaint identified two categories of defendants: the landowners or 

possessors (Barnes Real Estate Holdings, LLC and Belle Tire Distributors, Inc.), and the 

companies that provided snow and ice-removal services to the store (Backer Landscaping, Inc., 

and its subcontractor, Premier Lawn Care and Snow Removal, LLC). The parties stipulated to the 

dismissal of Barnes. For a variety of reasons, the circuit court granted summary disposition to the 

remaining defendants under MCR 2.116 (C)(10). Soave has elected not to challenge the grant of 

summary disposition in favor of Premier Lawn Care. 

II. ANALYSIS

Because our review of a grant of summary disposition is de novo, we need not defer to the 

circuit court’s legal analysis. Washington v Washington, 283 Mich App 667, 671; 770 NW2d 908 

(2009). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Soave, we consider whether the two 

remaining defendants are entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law. See Zaher v Miotke, 

300 Mich App 132, 139; 832 NW2d 266 (2013).

A. BACKER LANDSCAPING, INC.

Soave’s brief on appeal presents no argument whatsoever regarding the dismissal of Backer 

Landscaping, thereby abandoning any claims against this defendant. See Mitcham v Detroit, 355 

Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959).
-3-

B. BELLE TIRE

Soave contends that she slipped and fell on “nearly invisible black ice” which did not 

present an obvious danger on casual inspection, and that the hazard was unavoidable. We must 

reject both arguments.1

In Janson v Sajewski Funeral Home, Inc, 486 Mich 934, 935; 782 NW2d 201 (2010), the 

Supreme Court explained that “black ice” is “open and obvious when there are ‘indicia of a 

potentially hazardous condition,’ including the ‘specific weather conditions present at the time of 

the plaintiff’s fall.’ ”

2

 Wet surfaces, too, supply notice of ice. Jeffrey-Moise v Williamsburg 

Towne Houses Coop, Inc, 336 Mich App 616, 634-635; 971 NW2d 716 (2021). Soave admitted 

that there was visible snow and that it was a cold and snowy day, and she acknowledged that the

path she charted for herself was wet. The record establishes that others saw ice on the ground. 

Janson compels us to conclude that the ice on which Soave fell was open and obvious.

We next consider whether the ice was effectively unavoidable. “[T]he standard for 

‘effective unavoidability’ is that a person, for all practical purposes, must be required or compelled 

to confront a dangerous hazard.” Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450, 469; 821 NW2d 88 (2012)

(emphasis omitted). Like this case, Hoffner involved a business invitee. The Supreme Court 

concluded that an invitee’s visit to a business does not satisfy the “compulsion” requirement 

because a commercial visitor does not have an “unquestionable necessity” to use the service a 

business offers. Id. at 470-471 (emphasis omitted). Recently the Supreme Court created an

exception to the stringent “effectively unavoidable” rule, holding in Estate of Livings v Sage’s 

Investment Group, LLC, 507 Mich 328, 349; 968 NW2d 397 (2021), that “a hazard can be deemed 

effectively unavoidable if the plaintiff confronted it to enter his or her place of employment for 

purposes of work.” Livings, however, is inapplicable here. Because no evidence supports that 

Soave was effectively trapped in the Belle Tire office and without recourse to a safe route to her 

car, her argument that the ice was effectively unavoidable fails.

We affirm.

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly

/s/ Sima G. Patel

 

1 Soave raised a nuisance claim in the circuit court but has not presented any argument regarding 

nuisance on appeal.

2

Janson is an order that meets the standards for precedential effect. “An order of this Court is 

binding precedent if it constitutes a final disposition of an application and contains a concise 

statement of the applicable facts and reasons for the decision.” DeFrain v State Farm Mut Auto 

Ins Co, 491 Mich 359, 369; 817 NW2d 504 (2012).