Warning: Reasonable harm expected when it’s so obvious that you must step to avoid it

In Michigan, it is well settled that a premises owner must maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition and has a duty to exercise due care to protect invitees from conditions that might result in injury.  A premises owner does not owe the invitee a duty to warn where the dangers are known to the invitee or are so obvious that the invitee might reasonably be expected to discover the dangers. 

The Court of Appeals applied these well-established principles in Steven Lison and Carol Lison v Costco Wholesale Corporation, unpublished opinion per curiam of the COA, issued 2-27-18.  In Lison, the COA unanimously upheld the trial court’s decision to grant Costco’s MSD on the basis that Costco didn’t owe a duty to warn the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the allegedly hazardous condition.

To access the full article: http://bit.ly/2Gf6hpq