Unexpected falls can often lead to serious injuries.  Anyone who has been seriously injured can attest that no amount of money is worth nearly as much as good health.  However, our system of justice is powerless to repair broken bones and can do nothing to ease the pain, resulting from injuries.  The only thing our system can do is provide monetary compensation to an injured party that approximates – in dollar terms – the damage suffered.

However, before we get to the question of the theoretical number of dollars required to make the wrong things right, we have to answer an important question: Is somebody else responsible for the injuries that I have sustained?  Should somebody else be required to pay for my broken leg and the wages that I lost by not being able to work?

Attorney Kassem Dakhlallah.

A premises liability claim requires that a plaintiff prove the following four elements: (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages. As a general rule, a landowner owes a duty to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition on the land. 

It is well settled in Michigan that a premises owner must maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition and has a duty to exercise due care to protect invitees from conditions that might result in injury. An invitee is one who enters a premises to conduct business that concerns the premises owner at the owner’s express ,or implied invitation. For example, a shopper at a supermarket is an invitee.  

A premises owner’s duty to warn extends to hidden, or latent defects. The rationale underlying this rule is that liability for injuries resulting from defectively maintained premises should rest upon the one who is in control or possession of the premises and, thus, is best able to prevent the injury. 

The general rule is that a premises possessor is not required to protect an invitee from open and obvious dangers, but, if special aspects of a condition make even an open and obvious risk unreasonably dangerous, the premises possessor has a duty to undertake reasonable precautions to protect invitees from that risk. In Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512 (2001), the Court gave an example of “special aspects” of an open and obvious condition that would make it unreasonably dangerous: A commercial building with only one exit for the general public, where the floor is covered with standing water – the condition is open and obvious, but a customer wishing to exit the store must leave the store through the standing water. 

In a nutshell, it’s a good idea to watch where you’re going.  If you walk through the aisles at a supermarket, while staring at the rows of cereal boxes at the top of the shelves, and you slip on a large puddle of fruit drink on the floor, the supermarket will not be held liable if you then slip, fly into the air like Superman and land on the ground head-first resulting in your unfortunate permanent paralysis.  You should have avoided the open and obvious puddle on the floor before deciding between Golden Grahams and Cinnamon Toast Crunch.

— Kassem Dakhlallah is a partner with Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group, P.C.  His practice focuses on complex litigation including class actions, representative actions, commercial litigation, civil forfeiture and personal injury. He can be reached at (313) 846-6400 and kassem@jaafarandmahdi.com.