The Michigan Supreme Court Restores the Legal Rights of Injured Consumers and Shoppers to Seek Compensation from Negligent Business and Property Owners

For the last twenty years, a judge-made law in Michigan made it almost impossible for injured accident victims to seek compensation when injured at a business even if the business was negligent in maintaining their property, which resulted in an injury to a business invitee.

The previous rule held that if a condition could have been observed by the store patron, then the business owner had no legal duty to protect the patron from the condition.

A Michigan court even applied this legal doctrine to a blind accident victim and dismissed his legal case seeking compensation when injured at a business. The Michigan Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, restored common sense to the area of premises liability law and overturned the case of Lugo v. Ameritech Corp. Inc. in a landmark decision.

The Court held that while the open and obvious nature of a condition is relevant to the potential comparative fault of an accident victim, it is no longer to be dispositive to the question of the duty of the premise owner to keep the premises safe for business invitees. See Kondil-El Sayed v. F. E. Oil Inc. and Pinsley v. Kroger Co. of Michigan, decided July 28, 2023.

Please contact our Ann Arbor Personal Injury Law Firm for a free consultation to explain your rights in detail after an accident causing personal injury in Michigan.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the "open and obvious" doctrine in Michigan?

For 20 years, Michigan law held that if a dangerous condition on business property could have been observed by a visitor, the business owner had no legal duty to protect the patron from that condition. This made it nearly impossible for injured consumers to seek compensation, even when businesses were negligent in maintaining their property.

What did the Michigan Supreme Court decide in this landmark case?

In a 5-2 decision on July 28, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the Lugo v. Ameritech Corp. Inc. precedent. The Court ruled that while the open and obvious nature of a condition is relevant to determining comparative fault, it no longer automatically eliminates a property owner's duty to keep premises safe for business invitees.

Which cases were involved in this decision?

The Michigan Supreme Court's ruling came through two consolidated cases: Kondil-El Sayed v. F. E. Oil Inc. and Pinsley v. Kroger Co. of Michigan, both decided on July 28, 2023. These cases restored common sense to premises liability law in Michigan.

How does this ruling affect injured consumers?

This landmark decision restores the legal rights of injured consumers and shoppers to seek compensation from negligent business and property owners. Victims who are injured at businesses due to dangerous conditions can now pursue claims even if the hazard was visible, as long as the business was negligent in maintaining safe premises.

What should I do if I've been injured at a business in Michigan?

If you've been injured due to a dangerous condition at a business or on someone else's property, you should contact an experienced personal injury attorney for a free consultation. The law firm can explain your rights in detail and help you understand how this new ruling may apply to your case.