On July 28, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court changed the premises-liability framework in Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., together with Pinsky v. Kroger Co. of Michigan. The decision matters to obvious hazards, but it does not make every property injury compensable.

What changed

The Supreme Court opinion moved the open-and-obvious inquiry from duty to breach and comparative fault in the relevant premises-liability analysis. Visibility can still matter; it is not a categorical no-duty answer under the older framework.

The injured person must still address the applicable duty, unreasonable risk, breach, causation, damages, and any relevant fault. The result depends on the facts and claim, not merely on citing the case name.

Preserve the condition and context

  • Photographs showing the hazard, route, lighting, warnings, and surrounding area.
  • The exact location and why the person was on the property.
  • Available evidence about who controlled the area and knew or should have known about the condition.
  • Incident reports, witnesses, footage, and repair or inspection information.
  • Medical and loss records connecting the event to the claimed harm.

Keep this ruling report distinct from a claim checklist

Our premises-liability guide explains the broader framework. The slip-and-fall evidence guide focuses on preparing a particular claim, while tenant duties covers residential statutory questions.

For an individual assessment, use our premises liability practice page. Older articles relying on a categorical obvious-hazard bar should not replace a current review.

Talk with Logeman & Iafrate

Request a free consultation or call (734) 994-0200 to discuss your situation with our Ann Arbor office. Bring the relevant records and any insurer correspondence. Advice about your claim depends on the facts, coverage, and applicable deadlines.

General information only; this article is not legal advice for an individual case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the decision remove every defense?

No. The legal elements and relevant comparative-fault issues still matter.

Can obviousness still affect the case?

Yes. Its role changed; it was not made irrelevant.

‍This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney at Logeman & Iafrate, P.C. for advice regarding your individual situation.