KIMBERLY ROULT V REDFORD LANES INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
KIMBERLY ROULT,
UNPUBLISHED
July 13, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 222173
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-905600-AV
REDFORD LANES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Murphy, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals by leave granted the circuit court order affirming the grant of summary
disposition to defendant. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff brought this negligence action after she injured her foot in a fall in defendant’s
lounge. Plaintiff says she did not see a step in the dimly lit lounge, and fell. Defendant moved
for summary disposition, asserting that the danger was open and obvious. The district court
granted the motion, finding that defendant had no duty where the step was open and obvious and
it was not unusual. The circuit court affirmed, finding that plaintiff failed to show any unusual
circumstances that would render the open and obvious step a dangerous condition or an
unreasonable risk.
Possessors of land have a legal duty to exercise reasonable care to protect their invitees
from dangerous conditions on the land. Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 609; 537
NW2d 185 (1995). If a condition is open and obvious, this duty does not apply unless the
condition poses an unreasonable risk of harm. Milliken v Walton Manor Mobile Home Park, Inc,
234 Mich App 490, 498-499; 595 NW2d 152 (1999). The test for an open and obvious danger is
whether an average user with ordinary intelligence would have been able to discover the danger
and the risk presented upon casual inspection. Novotney v Burger King Corp (On Remand), 198
Mich App 470, 475; 499 NW2d 379 (1993).
To avoid summary disposition, plaintiff was required to present evidence that despite the
open and obvious nature of the step, it posed an unreasonable risk of harm. Weakley v Dearborn
Heights, 240 Mich App 382, 386; 612 NW2d 428 (2000). Plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff
knew that a step was present, and she had traversed the step on the way into the lounge. Steps
-1-
and differing floor levels are not ordinarily actionable unless unique circumstances surrounding
the area in issue made the situation unreasonably dangerous. Id. Plaintiff failed to show unique
circumstances that rendered the step dangerous.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ William B. Murphy
-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.
