Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Sep 2017
25
September 25, 2017

MSC to consider whether playing on a beach is "outdoor recreational use" of land

In Otto v. Inn at Watervale, Inc., No. 155380, the Michigan Supreme Court has granted the Inn's application for leave to appeal the question of whether a child's play on the beach constituted “other outdoor recreational use” of the Inn's land under the Recreational Land Use Act, MCL 324.73301(1). 

May 2017
25
May 25, 2017

COA: If a fire truck has to try to drive safely—then so does a snowplow. There is no immunity from negligence claims while working on roadways

In Flanagin v. Kalkaska Co Road Comm'n, No. 330887, the Court of Appeals held that statutory provisions that allowed state vehicles to cross the centerline while engaged in work on a roadway would not provide immunity against allegations of negligence. While a snowplow may not be committing a moving violation when plowing by being over the centerline, they can still be negligent. The facts at issue indicated it was possible that the snowplow was between four and six feet over the centerline, and thus there was a genuine issue of material fact as to alleged negligent conduct justifying the trial court's denial of summary disposition.

May 2017
24
May 24, 2017

MSC grants MOAA to consider scope of landlord’s statutory duty to ensure that internal stairways are “fit for the use intended by the parties” and in “reasonable repair”

In Martin v. Milham Meadows, No.154360, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument as to whether reasonable minds could differ regarding whether an internal stairway, which was overly slippery because of the paint applied, was fit for its intended use and kept in reasonable repair. 

Dec 2016
15
December 15, 2016

MSC: Onus is on plaintiff not defendant, to prove notice of hazard in slip and fall case

In Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ Inc, No. 153025, the Michigan Supreme Court, without oral argument, held the Court of Appeals erred when it both improperly shifted the burden to defendant to prove its lack of notice of a hazardous condition and imposed a new element necessary to prove such lack of notice thereby improperly imposing a new requirement on premises owners seeking summary disposition. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals regarding defendant’s notice, reinstated the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on that issue, and vacated the remainder of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 35)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset