WANDA SINDEL V RITE-AID OF MICHIGAN INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
WANDA SINDEL,
UNPUBLISHED
February 16, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
MERCHANT DETECTIVE AGENCY, d/b/a
MERCHANT SECURITY SERVICE, and ALI
SAAD, Next Friend of JAMIL ALI SAAD, Minor,
No. 214064
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 97-702578-NO
Defendants,
and
RITE-AID OF MICHIGAN, INC., d/b/a RITE-AID
DISCOUNT PHARMACY, d/b/a RITE-AID
PHARMACY, and Y.H.S., INC., d/b/a
PAISANO’S RESTAURANT,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and White and Wilder, JJ.
WHITE, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Defendants’ motions were brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8) alone.
The circuit court’s consideration of, and grant of, defendants’ motions under MCR 2.116(C)(10)
was thus improper, particularly given that discovery had only recently begun.1 Nor was summary
1
Plaintiff filed her complaint on January 27, 1997. The circuit court’s scheduling order set a
discovery cutoff date of September 8, 1997. Rite Aid filed a motion for summary disposition
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) on April 18, 1997, and Paisano filed a motion under 2.116(C)(8)
on April 25, 1997.
Plaintiff filed her response to defendants’ motions on May 9, 1997, and on the same day
filed a motion to amend her complaint, which the circuit court granted orally at the May 16, 1997
hearing on defendants’ motions, and effectuated by order entered on May 30, 1997. In addition
to the duties and breaches thereof set forth by the majority, plaintiff’s amended complaint alleged
that defendants “had knowledge of the dangerous and rough behavior which occurred on a daily
-1-
disposition proper under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Plaintiff’s amended complaint stated viable
premises liability claims against both defendants. See n 1, infra. If the court was of the opinion
that further amendment was required, it should have been permitted.
I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.
/s/ Helene N. White
basis in the parking lot in question when Fordson High School students were present,” that at all
relevant times both defendants possessed, occupied, maintained and/or controlled the parking lot,
that on the day in question plaintiff was a business invitee of both defendants, that on the day in
question “students were engaging in rough, group behavior” in the parking lot, and that upon
leaving Rite-Aid, “plaintiff was struck and knocked to the ground by one or more Fordson High
School students in the common parking lot shared by and located between Rite-Aid and
Paisano’s.” I do not agree that plaintiff was required to allege and show that defendant had
reason to believe that a specific person posed a threat of harm. See Mason v Royal Dequindre,
Inc., 455 Mich 391, 398-399; 566 NW2d 199 (1997), quoting 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 344,pp
223-224, and comment f thereto.
-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.