Court Opinion

ID: 9948867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 06:05:26.383553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:11.850147
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

JANET A. VROMAN,                                                      UNPUBLISHED
                                                                      March 7, 2024
                Plaintiff-Appellant,

v                                                                     No. 357179
                                                                      Oakland Circuit Court
THE DESSERT OASIS, LLC,                                               LC No. 2020-179357-NO

                Defendant-Appellee.

                                           ON REMAND

Before: CAMERON, P.J., and O’BRIEN and SWARTZLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        This case returns to this Court on remand1 for analysis under our Supreme Court’s recent
decision in Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95; ___ NW2d ___ (2023), and its
companion case, Pinsky v Kroger Co of Mich, which changed how courts analyze open and
obvious conditions in premises-liability claims. Because the factual record in this case is
insufficient to analyze plaintiff’s premises-liability claim under Kandil-Elsayed, we vacate the trial
court’s order granting summary disposition and remand for further proceedings.

                  I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        The facts of this case are not in dispute, and were previously set forth by this Court in
Vroman v Dessert Oasis, LLC, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued
June 9, 2022 (Docket No. 357179), pp 1-2 (Vroman I):

                 In December 2017, plaintiff visited defendant’s coffee shop during a
         nighttime holiday event in downtown Rochester, Michigan. As plaintiff attempted
         to walk from the sidewalk into defendant’s store, she tripped and fell on a three-

1
    Vroman v The Dessert Oasis, LLC, ___ Mich ___; 997 NW2d 179 (2023) (Vroman II).

                                                 -1-
       inch step that separated the sidewalk from a red-tiled piazza at the front of
       defendant’s shop. Plaintiff allegedly suffered various injuries.

               Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that defendant was responsible for the entry’s
       dangerous condition and was liable for her injuries. Plaintiff asserted two separate
       claims against defendant: one for premises liability and one for general negligence.
       Under the premises liability claim, plaintiff asserted that the step was not
       observable because there was no paint or other warning to indicate the existence of
       the elevated surface upon entering the shop. According to plaintiff, this hidden
       danger caused her fall.

               Following discovery, defendant moved for summary disposition under
       MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact), arguing in relevant part that
       plaintiff’s premises liability claim should be dismissed because the allegedly
       hazardous condition was open and obvious and lacking any special aspects.
       Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that inadequate lighting precluded application
       of the doctrine and that the step was not an open and obvious danger because it was
       undetectable upon casual inspection.

              After hearing oral argument, the trial court entered an order granting
       defendant’s motion for summary disposition and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint
       with prejudice. [Footnote omitted.]

In Vroman I, this Court affirmed the grant of summary disposition, reasoning there was no genuine
question of fact that the condition at issue was open and obvious, and therefore defendant did not
owe plaintiff a duty. Id. at 5.

        Later, our Supreme Court, in Kandil-Elsayed, 512 Mich at 148-149, substantially altered
the legal framework governing premises-liability claims. Because our decision in Vroman I relied
on the former open and obvious framework, the Court vacated Vroman I and remanded the case to
this Court for reconsideration in light of Kandil-Elsayed. Vroman v The Dessert Oasis, LLC, ___
Mich ___; 997 NW2d 179 (2023) (Vroman II).

                                 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

       A trial court’s decision regarding a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo.
Glasker-Davis v Auvenshine, 333 Mich App 222, 229; 964 NW2d 809 (2020).

               A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) . . . tests the factual sufficiency of a
       claim. When considering such a motion, a trial court must consider all evidence
       submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the
       motion. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) may only be granted when there is no
       genuine issue of material fact. A genuine issue of material fact exists when the
       record leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ. [El-Khalil
       v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152, 160; 934 NW2d 665 (2019) (quotation
       marks, citations, and emphasis omitted).]

                                               -2-
                                         III. ANALYSIS

        “In a premises liability action, a plaintiff must prove the elements of negligence: (1) the
defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach was the
proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages.” Buhalis v Trinity
Continuing Care Servs, 296 Mich App 685, 693; 822 NW2d 254 (2012) (quotation marks and
citation omitted). The duty owed to a visitor depends on whether the visitor is a trespasser,
licensee, or invitee. Kandil-Elsayed, 512 Mich at 111. Under our former jurisprudence, a land
possessor had no duty to protect invitees from open and obvious dangers. Lugo v Ameritech Corp,
Inc, 464 Mich 512, 517; 629 NW2d 384 (2001), overruled by Kandil-Elsayed, 512 Mich 95 (2023).
In other words, if a dangerous condition was deemed open and obvious, then the land possessor
had no duty, and the case would be dismissed. Kandil-Elsayed overruled Lugo, holding that the
open and obvious nature of a condition does not relate to the land possessor’s duty. Kandil-
Elsayed, 512 Mich at 133. Instead, Kandil-Elsayed concluded that whether a condition is open
and obvious is relevant to whether the defendant breached their duty of care. Id. at 144. Assuming
an otherwise actionable premises-liability claim has been established, the open and obvious nature
of the condition informs whether the plaintiff’s damages should be reduced on the basis of
comparative fault. Id. at 144, 148-149.

        The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, which we affirmed,
solely because the step in this case was open and obvious, which meant defendant owed plaintiff
no duty. Vroman I, unpub op at 5. But, the legal basis for the trial court’s ruling is no longer
tenable, because, under Kandil-Elsayed, the open and obvious doctrine no longer precludes the
existence of a duty. Having concluded plaintiff’s claim was barred under the former framework
of the open and obvious doctrine, the trial court has not fully analyzed the premises liability
elements. As such, the factual record is insufficient for this Court’s consideration and the case
must be remanded to the trial court for further factual development. On remand, should the trial
court conclude the premises liability elements are otherwise satisfied, then it may consider the
open and obvious nature of the defect in relation to plaintiff’s comparative fault.

       Vacated and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                              /s/ Thomas C. Cameron
                                                              /s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
                                                              /s/ Brock A. Swartzle

                                                -3-