EMILY KRAFT V SCOTT HOUGHTON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
EMILY KRAFT,
UNPUBLISHED
May 25, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 220587
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-824233-NO
SCOTT HOUGHTON,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
CITY OF GROSSE POINTE FARMS,
Defendant.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Smolenski and K. F. Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff fell while walking on a sidewalk next to defendant’s house, and fractured her
right knee. She brought this action asserting that plaintiff’s failure to clear the sidewalk of fallen
twigs and branches posed an unreasonable risk of harm. The trial court granted summary
disposition, finding that there was no evidence that defendant’s trees caused the condition, and
the danger was open and obvious.
In reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a trial court considers affidavits,
pleadings, depositions, admissions and any documentary evidence submitted in the light most
favorable to the party opposing the motion. A court may grant summary disposition if the
evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Quinto v Cross & Peters, 451 Mich 358, 362-363; 547 NW2d 314
(1996). If the opposing party fails to present documentary evidence establishing a factual
dispute, the motion is properly granted. Id.
-1-
As the trial court found, plaintiff offered no proof showing that defendant’s trees created
a nuisance. Even if the twigs came from defendant’s trees, defendant owed no duty to plaintiff as
a licensee. A landowner owes a licensee a duty only to warn of any hidden dangers the owner
knows or has reason to know of, if the licensee does not know or have reason to know of the
dangers involved. Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591, 596; 614 NW2d 88
(2000). The landowner owes no duty of inspection or affirmative care to make the premises safe
for the licensee’s visit. Id. at 596-597.
Defendant’s affidavit indicated that he did not know and did not have any reason to know
that twigs and branches covered his sidewalk. There is no evidence that defendant was in any
better position than plaintiff to observe the condition of the sidewalk. Where the danger was
open and obvious and did not pose an unreasonable risk, the trial court may properly grant
summary disposition, even as to an invitee. Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606; 537
NW2d 185 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
