Court Opinion

ID: 9909275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 21:00:47.172626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:30.389332
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                               File Name: 23a0517n.06

                                          No. 23-1128

                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                                FILED
                                                                                 Dec 12, 2023
                                                                          KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
                                                   )
 AMBER WENZEL,
                                                   )
        Plaintiff-Appellant                              ON APPEAL FROM THE
                                                   )
                                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT
                                                   )
                v.                                       COURT FOR THE WESTERN
                                                   )
                                                         DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                                                   )
 PHILLIP TREMONTI; KRISTA TREMONTI,                )
                                                                                  OPINION
        Defendants-Appellees                       )
                                                   )
                                                   )

Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; WHITE and BUSH, Circuit Judges.

       HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Amber Wenzel appeals the

grant of summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees Phillip and Krista Tremonti in this

negligence case arising from Wenzel’s fall from a zipline on the Tremontis’ property. We

VACATE and REMAND to allow the district court to reconsider all the issues presented in light

of the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., Nos.

162907/163430, 2023 WL 4845611 (Mich. July 28, 2023).

       Wenzel and her friends rented a vacation home from the Tremontis. The Tremontis, who

lived next door, invited Wenzel and her friends to use a homemade zipline located on the

Tremontis’ residence. Phillip Tremonti had installed the zipline without a harness, so riders had

to support themselves by gripping a handlebar as they rode down the zipline. According to

Wenzel, although Phillip knew Wenzel could hold on for only four seconds, he told her she would
No. 23-1158, Wenzel v. Tremonti

be fine, so she rode the zipline. However, partway down the zipline, Wenzel lost her grip and fell,

breaking her ankle.

       Wenzel filed this action against the Tremontis, bringing negligence and premises-liability

claims. At the time, Michigan law held that landowners owed “‘no duty to protect or warn’ of

dangers that are open and obvious because such dangers, by their nature, apprise an invitee of the

potential hazard, which the invitee may then take reasonable measures to avoid.” Hoffner v.

Lanctoe, 821 N.W.2d 88, 94 (Mich. 2012) (quoting Riddle v. McLouth Steel Prod. Corp., 485

N.W.2d 676, 681 (Mich. 1992)). The district court dismissed Wenzel’s claims under this “open

and obvious” doctrine, finding that the Tremontis owed her no duty.

       However, the Michigan Supreme Court significantly altered the applicable premises-

liability framework in Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc. Kandil-Elsayed held that (1) “the open

and obvious nature of a condition” is not an element of duty; but instead “is relevant to breach and

the parties’ comparative fault”; and (2) “when a land possessor should anticipate the harm that

results from an open and obvious condition, despite its obviousness, the possessor is not relieved

of the duty of reasonable care.” Id. at *4.

       Because Kandil-Elsayed sets out a drastic shift in the framework for analyzing premises

liability in Michigan, and the district court has not had the opportunity to evaluate the claims and

defenses in light of it, we VACATE the grant of summary judgment and REMAND for

reconsideration of all the claims in light of Kandil-Elsayed.

                                                 2