Premises Liability

Premises Liability in Michigan: Property Owners Pay When Their Negligence Hurts You

Premises liability is the legal framework that holds property owners responsible when dangerous conditions on their property cause injuries. It covers a vast range of situations: slip and falls on ice, trip hazards on broken sidewalks, assaults in poorly secured parking garages, swimming pool drownings, elevator malfunctions, falling merchandise in retail stores, and toxic exposures in residential or commercial buildings.

At Koussan Law, I've recovered a $6,000,000 settlement in a premises liability case. These aren't nuisance claims — they're cases where property owners knew about dangerous conditions, or should have known, and did nothing. Michigan law is clear about the duties property owners owe to people on their premises, and when those duties are violated, the owner is liable for the resulting injuries.

The Duty of Care Depends on Your Status

Michigan premises liability law categorizes visitors into three groups, each owed a different level of care. Invitees — customers, clients, patients, anyone on the property for the owner's commercial benefit — are owed the highest duty. The owner must inspect for hazards, repair dangerous conditions, and warn of any risks. Licensees — social guests — must be warned of known hidden dangers. Trespassers are owed the least duty, though Michigan still prohibits willful or wanton harm.

The classification matters enormously. Insurance companies routinely argue a victim was a trespasser or licensee rather than an invitee to reduce the property owner's duty. I challenge these classifications aggressively because the difference between invitee and licensee status can determine whether a case is worth pursuing.

The "Open and Obvious" Doctrine

Michigan's "open and obvious" defense has been one of the most contested areas of premises liability law. Property owners argue that if a hazard was visible, they had no duty to protect you from it. But Michigan courts have recognized critical exceptions: when the hazard was effectively unavoidable (the only entrance to a building was icy), or when special aspects made the hazard unreasonably dangerous despite being visible. The Michigan Supreme Court has continued to refine this doctrine, and the analysis is more fact-specific than most attorneys appreciate.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What types of properties can be subject to premises liability claims?

Any property — residential, commercial, industrial, or governmental. I've handled premises cases involving grocery stores, apartment complexes, hospitals, parking structures, construction sites, hotels, restaurants, schools, parks, and private homes. The duty of care and available defenses vary by property type and the victim's status, but the fundamental principle is the same: if the owner's negligence caused your injury, they're liable.

Q: How do I prove the property owner knew about the dangerous condition?

You can prove actual knowledge (the owner was told about the hazard) or constructive knowledge (the hazard existed long enough that a reasonable owner would have discovered it through routine inspection). Prior complaints, maintenance logs, inspection records, and surveillance footage are key evidence. I've won cases based on a store's own incident log showing five prior falls in the same location — proving they knew the hazard existed and did nothing.

Q: What is the statute of limitations for premises liability in Michigan?

Three years from the date of injury under MCL § 600.5805. If the property is owned by a government entity, you must file a 120-day notice under MCL § 691.1404. Government immunity can complicate claims against public properties, but exceptions exist — particularly for dangerous or defective conditions of public buildings under MCL § 691.1406.

Q: Can a property owner limit their liability through warning signs?

Warning signs can reduce liability but don't eliminate it. A "wet floor" sign doesn't excuse a store from cleaning up the spill in a reasonable time. A "swim at your own risk" sign doesn't excuse a pool owner from maintaining safe conditions. The adequacy of the warning is measured against the severity of the hazard and whether the property owner took other reasonable steps to address the danger. I evaluate whether the warning was sufficient given the specific circumstances of each case.