Court Opinion

ID: 9850726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:01:58.78389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:42.381838
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(dissenting in Maurer). I join in affirmance in Bertrand.
In Maurer, the majority rules that "viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that there was no genuine issue of material fact for the jury and that summary disposition was appropriate.”*
1
Summary disposition should not be granted if a record might be developed that "would leave open an issue on which reasonable minds might differ.”2 The majority in effect holds that no reasonable juror could find that the arrangement of steps posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
A reasonable juror, however, could find that the steps were unreasonably dangerous in the absence of a warning.3 These were not two steps of equal size descending from the doorway. A person reaching the bottom of a stair or set of stairs might not expect to take one or two paces, and then reach another step. This concrete slab was not a landing or some similar point at which one generally expects additional stairs._
*627The walkway in Beardsley v R J Manning Co, 2 Mich App 172; 139 NW2d 129 (1966), was similar. A ramp ran downward for about five feet, then was interrupted by a six-inch step, then continued for another three feet, eight inches. Plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell off the six-inch step. The Court held that there was a question for the jury concerning defendant’s negligence.4
The majority contends that there is no issue of material fact because plaintiff’s "only asserted basis for finding that the step was dangerous was that she did not see it.”5 The comments to Restatement, § 343A provide that the landowner owes a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect invitees where their attention may be distracted, or they are forgetful.6
A reasonable juror might find that the nature of these premises required a warning sign. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the sun shines into the doorway at certain times of day. The change in light might make it difficult for some invitees to see the second step.7 The location of this building in a public park at which picnics are held might also be significant. A reasonable juror might conclude that the park district should have anticipated the presence of picnickers who might fail to notice the second step.8
Determining whether a risk is unreasonable requires weighing the harm caused by the risk against the cost of preventing the harm. In this case, a warning sign might have prevented this harm at little cost to defendant. A reasonable *628juror might find that not to take such an inexpensive precaution was unreasonable.
As this Court admonished in Durant v Stahlin:
"Unfortunately summary judgment has been requested too often when there was a genuine issue of fact, but an impatient party or busy trial judge wanted to try it by affidavits. Any such inclination must be repudiated, for summary judgment procedure cannot impinge upon a party’s right to trial of disputed factual issues by a jury or usual court procedure.” [374 Mich 82, 89; 130 NW2d 910 (1964), quoting 1 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p 359.]

 Ante, p 621, citing MCR 2.116(0(10).

 7 Callaghan’s Michigan Pleading & Practice (2d ed), § 43.05, p 25.

 The majority states that an open and obvious danger cannot give rise to liability for failure to warn. Ante, p 614. The comment to the Restatement of Torts states that where " 'the possessor of land can and should anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm to the invitee notwithstanding its known or obvious danger’ ” the duty of reasonable care " 'may require him to warn the invitee, or to take other reasonable steps to protect him ....’” 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 343A, comment f, p 220, quoted ante, p 611.

 Id., p 176.

 Ante, p 621.

 Comments to Restatement, § 343A, p 220.

 I do not suggest that the record at trial would necessarily suggest a finding that this is what caused Mrs. Maurer’s accident.

 See n 6.