ALBERT STEVENSON V W G WADE SHOWS INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ALBERT STEVENSON,
UNPUBLISHED
July 26, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
W.G. WADE SHOWS, INC., STATE OF
MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, and MICHIGAN STATE FAIR
EXPOSITION CENTER,
No. 230999
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-001934-NO
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cooper and D. P. Ryan*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendants’ motion for summary
disposition in this trip and fall case. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
While attending the Michigan State Fair, plaintiff tripped on exposed cables and injured
himself. He brought this action alleging that defendants failed to keep the fairground sidewalks
in safe condition. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition because
the danger was open and obvious.
The duty a possessor of land owes to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to protect the
invitee from an unreasonable risk of harm does not generally encompass removal of open and
obvious dangers. Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512, 516; 629 NW2d 384 (2001). If
special aspects of a condition make an open and obvious risk unreasonably dangerous, the
possessor has a duty to undertake reasonable precautions to protect invitees from that risk. Id. at
517. “[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. Typical open and obvious dangers, such as potholes in a parking
lot, fail to give rise to these special aspects. Id. at 520.
In Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 624; 537 NW2d 185 (1995), the Court
found that an open and obvious condition could be unreasonably dangerous even when the
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
invitee was aware of the danger. The Court concluded that the construction of a step, in
combination with the placement of vending machines, the cashier’s window, and the hinging of
the door, gave rise to a question of fact regarding whether an unreasonable risk of harm existed.
Plaintiff was aware of the presence of cables on the sidewalks of the fairgrounds, and
testified that they were obvious. Plaintiff made no showing of any special aspects that would
give rise to a uniquely high likelihood of harm. Lugo, supra at 519. The cables are akin to a
typical open and obvious danger, such as a pothole.
Although the court granted the motion prior to the completion of discovery, summary
disposition was appropriate because there was no showing that further discovery would stand a
fair chance of producing factual support for plaintiff’s claim. Kelly-Nevils v Detroit Receiving
Hospital, 207 Mich App 410, 421; 526 NW2d 15 (1994).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Daniel P. Ryan
-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.
