PETER VERVERIS V HARTFIELD LANES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PETER VERVERIS, THERESA VERVERIS, and
PHILIP VERVERIS, a Minor, by his Next Friend
THERESA VERVERIS,
FOR PUBLICATION
May 2, 2006
9:15 a.m.
Plaintiffs-Appellants/CrossAppellees,
v
No. 251868
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2002-037354-NI
HARTFIELD LANES,
Defendant-Appellee/CrossAppellant.
ON REMAND
Official Reported Version
Before: Bandstra, P.J., Whitbeck, C.J., and Hoekstra, J.
PER CURIAM.
In an unpublished opinion per curiam issued May 19, 2005, this Court reversed the trial
court's order granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict in this slip and fall action, and
remanded this case for entry of a judgment consistent with the jury verdict. We concluded, on
the basis of Kenny v Kaatz Funeral Home, Inc, 264 Mich App 99; 689 NW2d 737 (2004) (Kenny
I), that the snow-covered ice on the parking lot where Peter Ververis fell did not present an open
and obvious danger.1 In a December 15, 2005, order, our Supreme Court vacated this Court's
judgment and remanded the matter to this Court for reconsideration, citing a summary
disposition order issued after our prior opinion here, Kenny v Kaatz Funeral Home, Inc, 472
Mich 929 (2005) (Kenny II). 474 Mich 954 (2005). Kenny II reversed Kenny I "for the reasons
stated" in Judge Griffin's dissent in Kenny I. Kenny II, supra at 929. Upon consideration of
Kenny II, as it has been cited here and in similar Supreme Court orders, we conclude that the
1
This is the only issue presented regarding the open and obvious danger doctrine; plaintiffs do
not argue that, even assuming the parking lot presented an open and obvious danger, there was
some "special aspect" of the danger that imposed a duty on defendant to take reasonable
precautions. See Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512, 517-519; 629 NW2d 384 (2001).
-1-
potential slipperiness of a snow-covered surface is an open and obvious danger even in the
absence of any separate factor suggesting that, in fact, the surface is slippery.
The facts underlying this case, the standard of review, and the applicable law were
succinctly stated in our prior opinion:
This premises liability claim is based on injuries sustained by Peter
Ververis when he slipped and fell on defendant's property as he attempted to enter
defendant bowling alley from the parking lot. The jury returned a verdict in
plaintiffs' favor, awarding $148,155.50 in damages. Plaintiffs appeal as of right
the trial court order granting defendant's motion for directed verdict of no cause of
action. Defendant cross-appeals as of right, challenging the trial court order
denying its motion for summary disposition, the jury's allocation of zero percent
fault to Peter Ververis, and the jury's award of economic damages. . . .
At the close of plaintiffs' proofs, defendant moved for directed verdict
based on the open and obvious doctrine and lack of notice of the allegedly
dangerous condition. The trial court took the motion under advisement, and the
trial continued. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, the trial
court granted defendant's motion. Plaintiffs now argue that the trial court erred in
granting defendant's motion because reasonable jurors could differ as to whether
the condition that Peter Ververis encountered was open and obvious. . . .
We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for directed
verdict. Sniecinski v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 469 Mich 124, 131;
666 NW2d 186 (2003). In reviewing the trial court's ruling, we view the evidence
presented up to the time of the motion in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, grant every reasonable inference to the nonmoving party, and
resolve any conflict in the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party to decide
whether a question of fact existed. Thomas v McGinnis, 239 Mich App 636, 643644; 609 NW2d 222 (2000). . . .
. . . Peter Ververis was an invitee on defendant's property at the time he
fell and fractured his ankle. Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich
591, 596-597; 614 NW2d 88 (2000). As a general rule, a premises owner owes a
duty to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from an
unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition on the land. Kenny v
Kaatz Funeral Home, Inc, 264 Mich App 99, 105; 689 NW2d 737 (2004).
However, this duty does not generally extend to open and obvious dangers. Lugo
v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512, 516; 629 NW2d 384 (2001). "'[W]here the
dangers are known to the invitee or are so obvious that the invitee might
reasonably be expected to discover them, an invitor owes no duty to protect or
warn the invitee unless he should anticipate harm despite knowledge of it on
behalf of the invitee.'" Id., quoting Riddle v McLouth Steel Products Corp, 440
Mich 85, 96; 485 NW2d 676 (1992). When determining if a condition is open
-2-
and obvious, we consider 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). [Ververis v Hartfield Lanes, unpublished opinion
per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 19, 2005 (Docket No. 251868),
slip op at 1-2.]
In Kenny I, this Court reversed a trial court order granting the defendant's motion for
summary disposition based on the open and obvious danger doctrine in a case involving a slip
and fall on snow-covered ice in a parking lot. This Court found that, viewing the evidence in a
light most favorable to the plaintiff, the black ice on which she slipped was hidden and not
observable. Kenny I, supra at 111.
Because, as noted earlier, the Supreme Court adopted Judge Griffin's dissent when it
reversed this decision, we closely consider that dissent. Judge Griffin noted that decisions of this
Court and our Supreme Court have applied the open and obvious danger doctrine to snow and ice
cases. Id. at 117 (Griffin, J., dissenting). Development of the open and obvious danger doctrine
since Quinlivan v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, Inc, 395 Mich 244; 235 NW2d 732 (1975),
means that the snow and ice analysis in Quinlivan is subsumed in the newly articulated rule set
forth in Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512; 629 NW2d 384 (2001). Kenny, I, supra at
117-118.
With respect to the question whether the snow-covered ice was an open and obvious
danger, Judge Griffin adopted "the reasons articulated by the trial court in its well-written
opinion," which he then quoted at length. Id. at 118-119. The trial court had noted that the 79year-old plaintiff "'had lived in Michigan all of her life and had witnessed many snowfalls'" and
reasoned that "[a]s a lifelong resident of Michigan, she should have been aware that ice
frequently forms beneath snow during snowy December nights." Id. at 119. At the same time,
however, the trial court had noted that the plaintiff "acknowledged that, before she exited the
vehicle, she had observed . . . others hang onto [the vehicle] for support" and reasoned that
"[t]hat alone should have clued her into the possible danger that awaited her outside the vehicle."
Id. Thus, the trial court's reasoning suggested two possible rules. First, a snow-covered surface
might always, by its very nature, present an open and obvious danger because it is likely to be
slippery as a result of underlying ice or for some other reason. Alternatively, a snow-covered
surface would not present an open and obvious danger unless there is some other reason, in the
facts of a particular case, that would lead a plaintiff to reasonably conclude that it is slippery.
Judge Griffin's summary statement on the matter does nothing to illuminate which approach he
was adopting:
In my view, after witnessing three companions exit a vehicle into the
snow-covered parking lot on December 27 and seeing them holding on to the
hood of the car to keep their balance, all reasonable Michigan winter residents
would conclude that the snow-covered parking lot was slippery. [Id. at 120.]
-3-
In the case before us, there was no independent factor, beyond the snowy surface itself,
that would reasonably have alerted Peter Ververis to the fact that it was slippery. In the absence
of such a factor, we must determine which of the two rules suggested in Judge Griffin's dissent is
applicable and decide this case accordingly.
We do so considering three recent orders of the Supreme Court that, like the order here,
were based on Kenny II. Schultz v Henry Ford Health Sys, 474 Mich 948 (2005), Morgan v
Laroy, 474 Mich 917 (2005) (Morgan II), and D'Agostini v Clinton Grove Condo Ass'n, 474
Mich 876 (2005). In each case, the Supreme Court reversed a decision of our Court that had
relied on Kenny I and determined that snow-covered ice did not constitute an open and obvious
danger. Schultz v Henry Ford Health Systems, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of
Appeals, issued May 19, 2005 (Docket No. 252643), Morgan v Laroy, unpublished opinion per
curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 14, 2005 (Docket No. 253789) (Morgan I), and
D'Agostini v Clinton Grove Condo Ass'n, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of
Appeals, issued March 1, 2005 (Docket No. 250896). The Supreme Court reinstated the trial
court decisions that the defendants were entitled to summary disposition on the open and obvious
danger question even though there were no factors in those cases, other than the snow-covered
surfaces themselves, that would have forewarned the plaintiffs regarding their slipperiness. E.g.,
Morgan I, slip op at p 3 ("All plaintiff saw was snow. He did not see ice and had no reason to
believe that slippery ice was underneath the snow.").
On the basis of these precedents, we hold as a matter of law that, by its very nature, a
snow-covered surface presents an open and obvious danger because of the high probability that it
may be slippery.2 As in the Schultz, Morgan, and D'Agostini cases, defendant here was entitled
to summary relief (a directed verdict) even though, in contrast to Kenny I, there was no other
factor that would have alerted Peter Ververis to that danger.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
2
This holding regarding a snow-covered surface is an extension of precedents already
recognizing that an icy surface presents an open and obvious danger. See, e.g., Perkoviq v
Delcor Homes—Lake Shore Pointe, Ltd, 466 Mich 11, 16; 643 NW2d 212 (2002) ("There was
nothing hidden about the frost or ice . . . , and anyone considering it would become aware of the
slippery conditions.").
-4-
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.