Opinion ID: 849279
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Premises Liability Law

Text: In order to provide guidance on remand, we note that the present case is a premises liability action. James' claim is that he was injured by a condition of the land. The alleged injury occurred while he and Alberts were digging the trench; however, James contends that it arose out of a condition of the land, not out of the activity itself. In his complaint, James alleges that Alberts breached his duties as a landowner. This Court recently set forth the duty of a landowner with respect to conditions on his land in Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591, 596-597, 614 N.W.2d 88 (2000): Historically, Michigan has recognized three common-law categories for persons who enter upon the land or premises of another: (1) trespasser, (2) licensee, or (3) invitee. Michigan has not abandoned these common-law classifications. Each of these categories corresponds to a different standard of care that is owed to those injured on the owner's premises. Thus, a landowner's duty to a visitor depends on that visitor's status. A trespasser is a person who enters upon another's land, without the landowner's consent. The landowner owes no duty to the trespasser except to refrain from injuring him by wilful and wanton misconduct. A licensee is a person who is privileged to enter the land of another by virtue of the possessor's consent. A landowner owes a licensee a duty only to warn the licensee of any hidden dangers the owner knows or has reason to know of, if the licensee does not know or have reason to know of the dangers involved. The landowner owes no duty of inspection or affirmative care to make the premises safe for the licensee's visit. Typically, social guests are licensees who assume the ordinary risks associated with their visit. The final category is invitees. An invitee is a person who enters upon the land of another upon an invitation which carries with it an implied representation, assurance, or understanding that reasonable care has been used to prepare the premises, and make [it] safe for [the invitee's] reception. The landowner has a duty of care, not only to warn the invitee of any known dangers, but the additional obligation to also make the premises safe, which requires the landowner to inspect the premises and, depending upon the circumstances, make any necessary repairs or warn of any discovered hazards. Thus, an invitee is entitled to the highest level of protection under premises liability law. [Citations omitted.] Under Stitt, Alberts' duty, as a landowner, turns on James' status at the time of the injuries. Once James' status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee is established, the next questions are whether Alberts breached the attendant duty and whether any such breach proximately caused the injuries at issue. See, e.g., Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc., 449 Mich. 606, 613, 537 N.W.2d 185 (1995), citing Riddle v. McLouth Steel Products Corp., 440 Mich. 85, 96, 485 N.W.2d 676 (1992). We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings to resolve these questions.