Litigation Defenders

Open and obvious may be gone in Michigan, but property owners can still protect themselves in premises liability cases.

The “notice” defense shifts back into focus after a recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling dismantled the “open and obvious” defense for premises liability claims.

The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday issued a landmark decision that abolishes the open and obvious defense for premises liability cases. 

In a published decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that a dog is a “condition on the land” under premises liability, and as such, can be defended by the open and obvious danger doctrine.

As water claims rise, insurance industry braces for a potential deluge of new form arson cases.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled store manager in a premises liability case can't be held personally liable for negligence for an accident in which he was not directly involved.

Michigan Court of Appeals rules water filled pothole is “open and obvious” in retail parking lot premises liability case.

Michigan appellate court rules contractors may be loaned temporary property possession rights, allowing them to assert an open and obvious defense in a premises liability claim, a defense typically reserved for actual property owners.

Investigating a plaintiff’s prior suits may reveal contrary positions barring a claim through judicial estoppel.

A party cannot overcome insufficient deposition testimony through a contradictory affidavit.

If you can’t remember last night at the bar, you probably shouldn't file a lawsuit when you wake up in the hospital.

In new unpublished case, Michigan Court of Appeals rules black ice is open and obvious.

Don’t be spooked by your own “phantom employees” in premises liability cases.

You could feel like a sad face emoji if comments found on your own social media accounts bolster a plaintiff’s premises liability claim.

An afternoon at the ball park could include foul balls, broken bats and flying hot dogs, so understand your personal risk before buying your tickets!

Appellate court reluctantly applies open and obvious doctrine in snow and ice case involving claim of ordinary negligence.

Michigan Supreme Court ruling reinforces open and obvious doctrine in black ice case.

Michigan Supreme Court gives premises owners early holiday present, ruling “reasonable inspection” not required in slip and fall claim.

This final installment of our four-part incident documentation series takes a look at the power of surveillance video and photos... or the lack thereof.

Part three of this four-part premises liability series focuses on the strategic issues one should consider when collecting witness statements as part of an incident report procedure.

In this second part of our four-part series on premises liability documentation, we take a look at the importance of detailed incident reports as a means for defending against a plaintiff's slip, trip and fall claim.

Proper incident inspections are the focus of this post, which is the first in a four-part series on premises liability documentation best practices.

Appellate court reverses trial court ruling favoring bar owner in premises liability case, and in so doing, creates notice and open and obvious doctrine questions of fact.

The Michigan Supreme Court recently doubled-down on the plain meaning of "open and obvious" in premises liability claims by reversing two lower appellate court rulings.

Implementing a surveillance video retention policy can help businesses defend against premises liability claims.

A recent ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals further clarifies the proper use of Grandberry-Lovette v Garascia in premises liability cases where constructive notice is at issue.

Appellate court affirms trial court's ruling to allow land survey as evidence in slip and fall liability case.

Actions outside the scope of an invitation by an invitee could change his/her legal status for purposes of premises liability.

Applying "open and obvious" doctrine just got tougher following recent appellate court ruling that a snow covered parking lot may represent a 'special aspect.'

The need to access one’s mailbox may constitute an “extenuating circumstance” such that Michigan’s open and obvious danger doctrine will not bar potential recovery.

Invitees can become a trespassers when they venture into an area they are not authorized or expected to be.

A recent ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals may adversely affect knowledgeable property owners with regard to constructive notice.

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that a non-tenant plaintiff is not owed a statutory duty under state law governing the condition of a rental dwelling.

Michigan Supreme Court rules non-possessory, uninvolved property owners cannot be held liable in public nuisance claims.

Michigan House and Senate pass two bills, codifying trespasser liability and leaving intact any immunity and defenses.