 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Herteg v. Somerset Collection GP9/20/2002
UNPUBLISHED
In this premises liability negligence action, defendants appeal as of right from a judgment entered following a jury trial awarding plaintiff $100,781.34. We affirm.
Defendants Somerset Collection GP, Inc., and Forbes/Cohen Properties, are the owners and operators of the Somerset Collection Mall. In the early morning of January 7, 1998, plaintiff, then 72 years old and a mall walker, slipped and fell in a puddle of water that had accumulated in an access area located before the entrance to a skywalk that connects old and new sections of the mall. The skywalk was built by defendant Perini Building Company and opened in October 1996. The puddle was created when rainwater leaked through the roof of the mall just above the skywalk access. It had been raining for three or four days prior to the accident. Intermittent leaks in the same area had caused the operators of the mall to effectuate repairs to the roof in June and July of 1997, and again in October and November of 1997. Plaintiff broke her left wrist and forearm in the fall.
Appellants first argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict because the evidence did not establish that appellants had actual or constructive notice of the puddle, nor did it show that appellants had created the dangerous condition. We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for a directed verdict. Meagher v Wayne State Univ, 222 Mich App 700, 708; 565 NW2d 401 (1997).
In reviewing the trial court's ruling, this Court views the evidence presented up to the time of the motion in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, grants that party every reasonable inference, and resolves any conflict in the evidence in that party's favor to decide whether a question of fact existed. A directed verdict is appropriate only when no factual questions exist on which reasonable minds could differ. [Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare System, 242 Mich App 385, 388- 389; 619 NW2d 7 (2000), vacated in part on other grounds 465 Mich 53 (2001).]
"In premises liability cases, the duty owed by the landowner is determined by the plaintiff's status at the time of injury ." Burnett v Bruner, 247 Mich App 365, 368; 636 NW2d 773 (2001). Accord Stanley v Town Square Coop, 203 Mich App 143; 512 NW2d 51 (1993). ("The duty a possessor of land owes to those who come upon the land turns on the status of the visitor."). It is a long established principle of the common law that a storekeeper has a duty to provide a reasonably safe environment for its invitees. See Clark v K Mart Corp, 465 Mich 416, 419; 634 NW2d 347 (2001); Carpenter v Herpolsheimer's Co, 278 Mich 697, 698; 271 NW 575 (1937). This includes the responsibility of providing reasonably safe aisles for the customers to traverse while shopping. Carpenter, supra at 698. This duty also applies to the owners of shopping malls, who as possessors of the land have the affirmative duty to see that the hallways and passageways of the retail complex are safe for use by patrons of the retail stores located in the mall. See 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, ยง 344.
The question we are presented with is whether in these circumstances, plaintiff, who was at the mall on the day of the accident as a mall walker, was an invitee or a licensee of the mall. Answering this question is essential to the resolution of this appeal because of the differing duties owed by a landowner to invitees and licensees. To both invitees and licensees, the landowner owes a duty to warn of any hidden dangers the landowner either knows of or has reason to know of. Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591, 596-597; 614 NW2d 88 (2000). However, a landowner also owes its
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|