For decades, Michigan courts have relied on the "open and obvious" doctrine to determine whether a property owner could be held responsible for injuries caused by hazardous conditions on their premises. Under this rule, if a hazard was considered “open and obvious”—meaning a reasonable person would have noticed it—property owners could avoid liability for slip and fall accidents. However, a landmark Michigan Supreme Court ruling in 2023 has abolished this doctrine, reshaping the way premises liability cases will be handled going forward.

Understanding the 'Open and Obvious' Doctrine

What Was the 'Open and Obvious' Doctrine?

The "open and obvious" doctrine was a long-standing legal principle in Michigan that allowed property owners to avoid liability for injuries caused by hazardous conditions if the danger was easily noticeable to a reasonable person. Essentially, if a hazard—such as an icy sidewalk, a broken step, or a wet floor—was visible and avoidable, the injured person was expected to take responsibility for their own safety rather than hold the property owner accountable.

This doctrine placed a significant burden on injury victims by making it difficult to seek compensation for slip and fall accidents. Even if a property owner knew about a dangerous condition and failed to fix it, they could escape liability simply by arguing that the hazard was “obvious” and that the victim should have been more cautious.

How the Doctrine Was Established: Lugo v. Ameritech Corp. (2001)

The 2001 Michigan Supreme Court case, Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., played a key role in solidifying the "open and obvious" doctrine as a major defense for property owners.

In Lugo, the plaintiff sued after tripping over a pothole in a parking lot, claiming that the property owner failed to maintain safe conditions. However, the court ruled that because the pothole was clearly visible, the property owner had no duty to fix it or warn visitors. This decision set a precedent that allowed businesses, landlords, and other property owners to routinely avoid liability in similar cases.

For over two decades, Lugo made it extremely difficult for slip and fall victims to win lawsuits, even in situations where property owners were negligent in maintaining their premises.

With the recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling abolishing the "open and obvious" defense, the legal landscape has changed dramatically. Now, property owners must take greater responsibility for hazards on their property, regardless of whether they are obvious or not. This shift opens the door for more injury victims to seek justice and fair compensation.

The Michigan Supreme Court's Recent Decision

Case Overview

• Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc.: Ahlam Kandil-Elsayed slipped and fell on snow and ice at a gas station operated by F & E Oil, Inc. She filed a negligence action, asserting that the snow and ice constituted a dangerous condition. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant, citing the "open and obvious" nature of the hazard, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
  courts.michigan.gov
• Pinsky v. Kroger Co. of Michigan: Renee Pinsky tripped over a cable strung from a checkout counter to a display basket in a Kroger store. She sued for negligence, but the trial court denied Kroger's motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the hazard was "open and obvious" and not unreasonably dangerous.
  courts.michigan.gov

Key Findings

In a decisive move, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled the precedent set by Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc. (2001), which had entrenched the "open and obvious" doctrine in premises liability cases. The Court determined that this doctrine was inconsistent with Michigan's comparative negligence framework. Instead of serving as a complete defense absolving property owners of duty, the obviousness of a hazard will now be considered in assessing whether the property owner breached their duty and in evaluating the comparative fault of the parties involved.

courts.michigan.gov

This ruling signifies a pivotal shift towards a more nuanced analysis of a property owner's duty of care, emphasizing the importance of maintaining safe premises regardless of whether a hazard is apparent.

Implications for Slip and Fall Cases

Property Owners Now Have a Heightened Duty of Care

Under the new legal standard, property owners can no longer automatically avoid liability simply because a hazard was “obvious” to a reasonable person. Instead, courts will focus on whether the property owner took reasonable steps to prevent hazards or warn visitors of potential dangers.

This means that businesses, landlords, and other property owners must take a more proactive approach in maintaining their premises, including:

• Regular inspections to identify and remove hazards.
• Promptly addressing dangerous conditions, such as wet floors, icy sidewalks, or broken steps.
• Placing clear warnings if immediate repairs cannot be made.

Failure to uphold this duty could now result in liability, even if the hazard was clearly visible to an injured person.

Comparative Fault: A New Standard for Slip and Fall Cases

While the ‘open and obvious’ defense is abolished, courts will still consider whether an injured person shared responsibility for their accident. This means that if an individual failed to exercise reasonable caution, their compensation could be reduced under Michigan’s comparative negligence rule.

For example:

• If a person ignored warning signs or was distracted (e.g., looking at their phone while walking), a court may assign partial fault to them.
• If a hazard was avoidable but the property owner still failed to address it, the owner may still be held accountable for their negligence.

Instead of serving as a complete defense, the visibility of a hazard will now be one factor in determining each party’s level of responsibility.

Potential Increase in Slip and Fall Claims

With the removal of the ‘open and obvious’ barrier, it is likely that Michigan will see an increase in premises liability claims. Individuals who previously had no legal recourse due to the old doctrine may now have the opportunity to file lawsuits and seek compensation.

This shift is expected to:

• Encourage property owners to improve safety measures to avoid potential lawsuits.
• Give more injury victims a fair chance to present their cases in court.
• Increase settlements and verdicts in favor of plaintiffs who were previously denied justice.

For injury victims, this ruling represents a major victory—allowing them to hold negligent property owners accountable and recover compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. However, navigating premises liability cases can still be complex, making it crucial to seek experienced legal representation.

Understanding Your Rights Under Michigan’s New Premises Liability Laws

The abolition of the “open and obvious” doctrine marks a significant shift in Michigan’s legal landscape, ensuring that property owners can no longer automatically evade liability for hazardous conditions on their premises. If you have been injured in a slip and fall accident, it is essential to understand that you now have stronger legal protections and a greater opportunity to hold negligent property owners accountable.

This ruling reinforces the importance of safe property maintenance and fair legal recourse for injury victims. Whether your accident occurred at a grocery store, gas station, apartment complex, or business, the new law means that your claim deserves careful legal evaluation.

Take Action—Protect Your Rights Today

If you or a loved one have suffered a slip and fall injury, you may be entitled to compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The new legal standard makes it more crucial than ever to consult with experienced personal injury attorneys who can help navigate this evolving legal landscape.

At Marko Law, we specialize in premises liability cases, fighting for the rights of injury victims and ensuring they receive the justice and compensation they deserve.

Contact Marko Law for a Free Case Evaluation

📞 Phone: 1-833-MARKO-LAW or 1-313-777-7LAW
📍 Main Office: 220 W. Congress, 4th Floor, Detroit, MI 48226
🌐 Website: www.markolaw.com