Court Opinion

ID: 9710019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:59:46.888816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:53.540048
License: Public Domain

Murphy, J.
(dissenting). I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants.
The facts in this case were set forth in this Court’s prior published opinion. Novotney v Burger King Corp (On Rehearing), 188 Mich App 705, 706-707; 470 NW2d 93 (1991).
I acknowledge that Riddle v McLouth Steel Products Corp, 440 Mich 85; 485 NW2d 676 (1992), stands for the proposition that an owner of land has no duty to warn an invitee of an open and obvious danger unless the owner has anticipated the harm will result despite the invitee’s knowledge of the danger. Unlike the majority, I am not persuaded that the rationale in Glittenberg v Doughboy Recreational Industries (On Rehearing), 441 Mich 379; 491 NW2d 208 (1992), a products liability case, is applicable to this premises liability claim.
In my opinion, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the reasonableness of the defendants’ conduct and the questions concerning the unsafe condition of the ramp, the defendants’ knowledge of the danger, and the open and obvious nature of the hazard should be resolved by the trier of fact. Thus, I would find summary disposition inappropriate and would remand to the trial court for further proceedings.