Case Name: BARD v. WEATHERVANE OF MICHIGAN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1974-01-17
Citations: 51 Mich. App. 329
Docket Number: Docket No. 16549
Parties: BARD v WEATHERVANE OF MICHIGAN
Judges: Before: Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and Peterson, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 51
Pages: 329–337

Head Matter:
BARD v WEATHERVANE OF MICHIGAN
Opinion op the Court
1. Negligence — Duty—Invitee—Ice and Snow — Business Parking Lots.
The duty owed by an operator of a business to a business invitee with respect to an icy, rutted condition of a business parking lot arising from traffic on natural accumulations of snow is to not increase these natural hazards or create a new hazard by any affirmative act.
Dissent by Holbrook, J.
2. Negligence — Duty—Invitee—Ice and Snow — Business Parking Lots.
The basic tort rule that a landowner has a responsibility to exercise due care to keep his premises and access thereto in a safe condition for their use by business invitees should apply to a landowner’s private parking lot made hazardous due to natural accumulations of ice and snow, especially where the dangers in walking on accumulations of ice and snow in the parking lot had been severely heightened due to icy ruts formed by automobile traffic in the lot of which the landowner had knowledge and control.
Appeal from Ingham, Jack W. Warren, J.
Submitted Division 2 November 16, 1973, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 16549.)
Decided January 17, 1974.
Complaint by Sharon Bard and Allen Bard against Weathervane of Michigan for damages for injuries sustained in a fall on snow and ice. Directed verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Reference for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 38 Am Jur 2d, Garages, and Parking and Filling Stations §§ 81-83, 85, 89, 92, 94-96.
Abood, Abood & Abood, P. C, for plaintiffs.
Foster, Lindemer, Swift & Collins, for defendant.
Before: Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and Peterson, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Quinn, P. J.
January 27, 1972, plaintiffs drove to defendant's shop in Okemos, Michigan, to purchase a new pair of ski gloves for Mrs. Bard. They parked their automobile in defendant's parking lot as near to the shop entrance as was possible. The parking lot was well lighted but it was icy and rutted from prior accumulation of snow and traffic. A light snow was falling on the evening in question. These conditions were known to plaintiffs, and because of this, Mrs. Bard walked slowly and watched the ground as she proceeded to the shop entrance. Approximately half way from the automobile to the entrance, she slipped and fell on the ice, breaking her ankle.
This action based on the alleged negligence of defendant in failing to maintain its parking lot in a reasonably safe condition followed. At trial, when plaintiffs rested, defendant's motion for directed verdict was granted and plaintiffs appeal.
The controlling issue has not been accurately stated by either party. We believe a precise statement of that issue is: What duty does the operator of a business owe to invitees of the business with respect to the icy, rutted condition of the business parking lot arising from traffic on natural accumulation of snow?
Plaintiffs argue that the duty owed is properly stated in Kroll v Katz, 374 Mich 364, 371; 132 NW2d 27, 30 (1965). We cannot accept this argument for two reasons. Kroll did not involve a slip and fall on a natural accumulation of ice and snow. Secondly, Kroll states the basic duty of an invitor to an invitee which we find to be inapplicable to the case before us, which involves a hazard created by natural elements.
Snow falls on invitor, invitee, and all residents of the snow area alike. All are, or should be, aware of the hazards arising from natural accumulations of snow such as icy conditions and ruts from traffic. These are common wintertime hazards to all who live in areas where show accumulates, and these hazards, without more, give rise to no duty owed by an invitor to an invitee.
Given the conditions that existed in this case, what was the duty that defendant owed to plaintiffs? It was to not increase these natural hazards or create a new hazard by any affirmative act, Weider v Goldsmith, 353 Mich 339; 91 NW2d 283 (1958). We find nothing in this record to indicate that defendant violated this duty.
The record discloses that Mrs. Bard was aware of the dangerous condition of defendant's parking lot and that she chose to use it. This obviates discussion of plaintiffs' claim that defendant owed a duty to warn plaintiffs of the dangerous condition.
Affirmed with costs to defendant.
Peterson, J., concurred.