LORETA ODISHER V SNOW SNAKE MOUNTAIN INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
LORETA ODISHER and LEO ODISHER,
UNPUBLISHED
September 21, 2001
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
V
No. 223764
Clare Circuit Court
LC No. 97-900261-NI
SNOW SNAKE MOUNTAIN, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Markey and Cooper, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal by right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of
defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this premises liability case. We affirm. This appeal
is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal, plaintiffs contend that summary disposition was improperly granted because
the reasonableness of defendant’s conduct was a question for a jury to determine. We disagree.
As a general rule, a premises possessor is not required to protect an invitee from open and
obvious dangers except where special aspects of a condition make even an open and obvious risk
unreasonably dangerous, whereupon the premises possessor has a duty to undertake reasonable
precautions to protect invitees from that risk. Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512, 517;
629 NW2d 384 (2001). In the context of a motion for summary disposition, the “critical
question is whether there is evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding
whether there are truly ‘special aspects’ of the open and obvious condition that differentiate the
risk from typical open and obvious risks so as to create an unreasonable risk of harm . . . .” Id.
“[O]nly those special aspects that give rise to a uniquely high likelihood of harm or severity of
harm if the risk is not avoided will serve to remove that condition from the open and obvious
danger doctrine.” Id. at 519.
Here, plaintiffs point to no truly “special aspect” of defendant’s ninth hole fairway that
significantly increased the likelihood or severity of harm to an invitee so as to remove it from the
open and obvious doctrine. Indeed, as the trial court noted, there was “nothing unusual” about
the condition of the area where plaintiff fell. Obviously, golf courses are exposed to the
elements, including rain, that may naturally accumulate on a course’s large expanses of grass,
making it slippery. A reasonably prudent person would be aware of these conditions and would
take appropriate care for his own safety. See Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 609; 537
-1-
NW2d 185 (1995). Defendant did not have a duty to warn plaintiffs of the open and obvious
dangers of playing golf on rain-soaked grass. Lugo, supra at 517; Riddle v McLouth Steel
Products Corp, 440 Mich 85, 92; 485 NW2d 676 (1992). Accordingly, defendant was properly
granted summary disposition.
We affirm.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-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.
