KEVIN S HOUSE V PINE KNOB

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KEVIN S. HOUSE, UNPUBLISHED December 23, 1997 Plaintiff-Appellant, v PINE KNOB, a/k/a ARENA ASSOCIATES, INC, No. 196908 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 94-476097 NO Defendant-Appellee. Before: McDonald, P.J., and Wahls and J. R. Weber*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. A third party assaulted plaintiff while plaintiff attended a concert on defendant’s premises. Plaintiff appeals as of right from the summary dismissal of his premises liability action brought as a consequence of that assault. We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). A merchant is not ordinarily required to protect customers from criminal acts of third persons. Scott v Harper Recreation, Inc, 444 Mich 441, 448; 506 NW2d 857 (1993). Plaintiff seeks to avoid the application of this rule by relying on this Court’s decision in Jackson v White Castle System, Inc, 205 Mich App 137; 517 NW2d 286 (1994). We find Jackson distinguishable. On the instant record, at the time of the attack defendant did not yet know or have reason to know that plaintiff was in imminent peril. Compare Id. at 141-142. Put differently, the criminal act was not foreseeable, and defendant had no duty to prevent the attack. See Mason v Royal Dequindre, Inc, 455 Mich 391, 403-404; 566 NW2d 199 (1997). Indeed, the instant case falls squarely within the parameters of Scott. According to plaintiff’s complaint, he seeks to recover on theories that defendant failed to adequately train its security staff and that defendant’s security personnel mishandled the situation. In other words, plaintiff seeks to impose liability because the security measures employed by defendant were less effective than they could have been. Where a merchant voluntarily undertakes safety measures for the benefit of its patrons, the merchant will not be held responsible for injuries suffered by patrons as a result of criminal acts of third * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ parties because the security measures implemented were less effective than they could have been. Scott, supra at 452. See also Abner v Oakland Mall Ltd, 209 Mich App 490; 531 NW2d 726 (1995). Affirmed. /s/ Gary R. McDonald /s/ Myron H. Wahls /s/ John R. Weber -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.