EDWARD VELLIQUETTE V DANA MCCORMICK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
EDWARD VELLIQUETTE,
UNPUBLISHED
March 31, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellant.
v
No. 192097
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 95-491191 NO
DANA MCCORMICK and MARGARET
MCCORMICK,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Markey and J.B. Sullivan*, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court order granting summary disposition to
defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We reverse and remand.
Plaintiff served as a baby-sitter, spending each day at defendants’ home with his grandchildren,
defendants’ children. Plaintiff received a small stipend to help cover his related expenses. After a day
of caring for the children, plaintiff remained at defendants’ home for several hours to have dinner and
watch television. When plaintiff left the house around 9:00 p.m., he slipped and fell on ice at the bottom
of the driveway. Plaintiff sued, alleging five theories of negligence: failure to warn, failure to maintain the
premises, failure to keep the area free of hazards, failure to remove snow and ice, and failure to maintain
adequate lighting.
The duty owed by a landowner depends upon the status of the injured party at the time of the
injury. Doran v Combs, 135 Mich App 492, 495; 354 NW2d 804 (1984). A landowner’s duty to an
invitee is broader than that owned to a licensee. Id. at 496. A social guest, however cordially invited
and urged to come, is no more than a licensee. Wymer v Holmes, 429 Mich 66, 71 n 1; 412 NW2d
213 (1987). An invitee includes family members who are on the premises predominately for the benefit
of the landowner, as opposed to for social purposes. Doran, supra at 496. Whether someone is an
invitee or a licensee on another’s property may be a question of fact where persons of average
intelligence can disagree over whether the guest is on the property for a social purpose or to render a
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
service beneficial to the owner of the property. White v Badalamenti, 200 Mich App 434, 436; 505
NW2d 8 (1993).
In this case, there is no question of fact regarding plaintiff’s status. As a matter of law, plaintiff
was an invitee as his presence on defendants’ premises was primarily a service to defendants. Doran,
supra at 497; Leveque v Leveque, 41 Mich App 127, 132; 199 NW2d 675 (1972). See also Lundy
v Groty, 141 Mich App 757, 759; 367 NW2d 448 (1985). A landowner is required to take
reasonable measures within a reasonable time after an accumulation of ice and snow to diminish the
hazard of injury to an invitee. Quinlivan v The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 395 Mich 244,
261; 235 NW2d 732 (1975). Further, even if the danger was open and obvious, defendants would still
have the duty to take reasonable precautions if the risk of falling was not eliminated by the awareness of
the hazard. Hottmann v Hottmann, 226 Mich App 171, 176; ___ NW2d ___ (1997). Whether
defendants’ actions fulfilled their obligation is a question of fact for the jury. Id.; Lundy, supra at 760
761. See also Beals v Walker, 416 Mich 469, 480-481; 331 NW2d 700 (1982). Accordingly, the
trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Joseph B. Sullivan
-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.
