PAUL MISSON V ESTATE OF JOHN CORBETT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PAUL MISSION,
UNPUBLISHED
February 17, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 294905
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-105140-NO
JULIE CORBETT, PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
JOHN CORBETT,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
JULIE CORBETT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: JANSEN, P.J., and OWENS and SHAPIRO, JJ.
SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).
I concur.
Plaintiff testified that defendant advised him there were some bees in a particular area of
the roof line. He further testified that the area where the bees swarmed was in a wholly different
area of the roofline on the other side of the very large house; and that the bees did not come from
the old nest he saw in the gutter, but rather from between the gutter and the shingles where,
apparently, bees had made a hidden nest. Given that the warning plaintiff claims he received
was not that there were bees in the area where he actually encountered the swarm and given that
the bees came from a hidden area, I do not agree that the open and obvious doctrine applies.
However, I do agree that a reasonable jury would have to conclude that plaintiff was
more than 50 percent at fault. He chose to work from the roof rather than from a ladder, he did
so without appropriate safety equipment, he saw bees in many other areas, and he did not request
that defendant or the company he worked for to arrange for an exterminator to treat the roofline
before beginning or continuing the work. Moreover, defendant testified that she was unaware of
any bees in the area in question or of any large number of bees anywhere on the roofline and
there was no evidence to contradict this.
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-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.
