 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Gordon3/22/2002
on the land that the Garb Ko knew or should have known the decedent would not discover or protect herself against. Butler v Ramco-Gershenson, Inc, 214 Mich App 521, 532; 542 NW2d 912 (1995). We find that the trial court correctly determined that Garb Ko owed the decedent no duty to protect her against the criminal acts of Young, a third party. MacDonald v PKT, Inc, 464 Mich 322, 334-335; 628 NW2d 33 (2001). Plaintiff provided no evidence demonstrating any specific criminal acts that had occurred on the premises that posed a risk of imminent and foreseeable harm to an identifiable invitee. Id. at 338.
With respect to plaintiff's argument that the court improvidently granted Marathon summary disposition in the face of the court's acknowledgment that the nature of the business relationship between Marathon and Garb Ko remained unclear, we note that plaintiff produced no evidence contradicting the affidavit submitted by Marathon that indicated it had sold the business to Garb Ko. Furthermore, even assuming that plaintiff could have obtained further discovery reflecting that Marathon possessed and controlled the 7-Eleven store, Marathon nonetheless was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it likewise owed the decedent no duty to protect her from Young's unforeseeable criminal acts. MCR 2.116(I)(1); MacDonald, supra at 334-335.
Affirmed.
Hilda R. Gage
E. Thomas Fitzgerald
Joel P. Hoekstra
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|