SUSAN BLACKWELL V DEAN FRANCHI (Dissenting Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SUSAN BLACKWELL, FOR PUBLICATION January 31, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 328929 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 14-141562-NI DEAN FRANCHI and DEBRA FRANCHI, Defendant-Appellee. Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and GLEICHER and SHAPIRO, JJ. K. F. KELLY (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The relevant inquiry is not whether the step was open and obvious, but whether the dark room was open and obvious. I agree with the majority that plaintiff was a licensee for whom defendants had an obligation to warn of hidden dangers. At the heart of this matter is what constituted the “danger” to plaintiff – the unexceptional 8-inch step or the dark room? At oral argument, plaintiff’s attorney conceded that there was absolutely nothing remarkable about the step. Counsel specifically acknowledged that it was a normal 8-inch step that, had the room been properly lit, would have been open and obvious. Plaintiff claims that the step was a danger because it was “unknown.” However, it was unknown because plaintiff purposefully entered a dark room to confront unidentified dangers. The danger was not the stairs, but the dark room itself, which could have contained a variety of other unspecified and common-place “dangers,” such as laundry baskets or toys. The fact that the room was not lit was open and obvious. Plaintiff should have realized the danger entering a dark and unknown room posed. I would affirm summary disposition in defendants’ favor. /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly -1-
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.
