Slip and Fall dangerous walk

If you choose to walk in a place that appears to be potentially dangerous, you may not be able to recover for your injuries.

Issues: Premises liability; Fall from a platform stage; Whether the trial court properly found there was a question of fact as to whether the hazard involved was "open and obvious" and denied defendant summary disposition; Maiden v. Rozwood; Slaughter v. Blarney Castle Oil Co.; Arguments as to the plaintiff's age; Mann v. Shusteric Enters., Inc.; Lugo v. Ameritech Corp.; Mitcham v. City of Detroit
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: Chesser v. Radisson Plaza Hotel at Kalamazoo Ctr.
e-Journal Number: 51368
Judge(s): Per Curiam - Sawyer, O'Connell, and Ronayne Krause

On reconsideration in an interlocutory appeal in this premises liability case, the court held that it was clear from the evidence that a reasonable person would have been aware of the danger posed by the raised stage with its narrow walking area and unguarded rear. Thus, the condition was open and obvious. The trial court erred in finding a question of fact as to whether the hazard was open and obvious, and in denying defendant's motion for summary disposition. The case arose from plaintiff-Norma's fall off a raised platform-stage while walking on it during an event held on defendant's premises. Plaintiff was a speaker at the event, and the stage was set up with stairs at each end, a table along the front with a podium in the middle, chairs at the table, and a space along the back for traversing the stage (or getting from a seat to the podium and back). Both parties attached photographs of the stage setup. Neither party disputed that the stage was set up to have some distance from the wall behind it, and there were no guard rails at the back. On the day of the incident, plaintiff entered the room about 10 minutes before the conference was scheduled to start. She went up the stairs on the right side of the stage and, as she explained, was aware that she was on an elevated surface. She did not believe the situation was dangerous at the time. Since her assigned seat was on the left side of the stage, she walked almost the entire length of it to her seat. All of the seats on the right side of the stage were already occupied, so she had to walk behind the filled seats. She had no problem doing so. She took her seat at the table on the left side of the stage. She had no problem standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. When she got up to give her speech she "realized there was a space in the back of the stage and [she] had to move to the right of the chairs to stay away from the edge." She testified that she had given speeches to audiences before, and had given one the prior day. She got to the podium with no problems, spoke for about five minutes, turned to return to her seat, and had to move around the seat right next to the podium. She walked behind two seats without problems. When she got behind the third seat, she fell off the stage. She explained that her right foot simply "stepped on air." She landed "full force" on her shoulder. Defendant moved for summary disposition arguing that the hazardous condition of the back of the stage was open and obvious. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that it was a factual question for the jury. The court noted that the standard "is what a reasonable person in plaintiff's position would have apprehended, not what a specific plaintiff was aware of . . . ." Reversed.