ROBERT BLACK V F ROBERT SUCHYTA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ROBERT BLACK and DONNA L. BLACK,
UNPUBLISHED
February 27, 2001
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 220211
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-826690-NO
F. ROBERT SUCHYTA, D.O.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Neff and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs appeal of right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition
under MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this slip and fall case. We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff Robert Black was injured when he stepped off the side of a handicap ramp at a
building owned by defendant. Defendant moved for summary disposition asserting that he owed
no duty where the danger was open and obvious. The trial court granted the motion, noting that
the danger was open and obvious, and defendant did not have a duty to warn or exercise care for
an invitee where there was no unreasonable risk of harm.
A duty of care owed to an invitee does not extend to conditions from which an
unreasonable risk cannot be anticipated or to danger so obvious that an invitee can be expected to
discover them himself. Ellsworth v Hotel Corp of America, 236 Mich App 185, 195; 600 NW2d
129 (1999). An invitor is not required to eliminate or warn of open and obvious dangers unless
the invitor should anticipate the harm despite the invitee’s knowledge of it. Weakley v Dearborn
Heights, 240 Mich App 382, 385; 612 NW2d 428 (2000). Whether a danger is open and obvious
depends on whether it is reasonable to expect that an average user would discover the danger
upon casual inspection. Id.
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the open and obvious danger doctrine applies not only to
preclude a duty to warn, but also to a duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Millikin v Walton Manor Mobile Home Park, Inc, 234 Mich App 490; 595 NW2d 152 (1999).
The dangers presented by an inclined handicap access ramp are generally so obvious that an
invitee might reasonably be expected to discover them. Novotney v Burger King Corp (On
Remand), 198 Mich App 470; 499 NW2d 379 (1993).
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.