The line between premises liability and ordinary negligence is often clear, but it can become blurred when an invitee is injured by overt acts taken by a premises possessor. In Sundberg v Oberstar (Docket No. 350876), the Court of Appeals analyzed the open-and-obvious doctrine and the viability of an ordinary-negligence claim in a case arising out of a high drop-off hidden behind a closed door in an office building. It reversed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendants, concluding that issues of material fact precluded summary disposition under the open-and-obvious doctrine, and that the plaintiff sufficiently pled an ordinary-negligence claim based on the actions and inactions of the premises possessor.
Background on Sundberg
Plaintiff Lee Anne Sundberg was a sales representative visiting Defendant Oberstar, Inc.'s office building to arrange a webinar. Before the presentation, Sundberg asked an employee where the bathroom was located. The employee directed her to a location with two doors. Sundberg opened one of the doors, which was unlabelled and unlocked. The room she entered was not the bathroom; it was a room with no floor that was used as an accessway to the basement. The hallway outside the door did not have a light, and the room itself had no overhead lighting. Sundberg felt for a light switch as she crossed the threshold, but she immediately fell more than seven feet onto the cement basement floor. No one warned her of the hazard. Sundberg sued Oberstar and the office building owner, alleging claims of premises liability and ordinary negligence.
The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary disposition in its entirety. It dismissed Sundberg's premises liability claim because it determined that reasonable minds could not find that the drop-off was anything but an open and obvious danger. The trial court further held that Sundberg could not maintain an ordinary-negligence claim because she was injured by a dangerous condition on the land, meaning that her claim sounded exclusively in premises liability.
Outcome on Appeal
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary disposition and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Premises Liability
In overturning the lower court's decision, the Court of Appeals highlighted the duty owed to invitees set forth in Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450 (2012). In Hoffner, the Michigan Supreme Court explained that a "landowner owes a duty to use...
