Michigan · Slip and fall claims: care and next steps

Slip and fall claims: care and next steps in Michigan

See If You Qualify

Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes

Updated

02 · Where cases are heard

Where would my case be heard?

Michigan premises liability law applies the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser classification. Invitees are owed a duty of reasonable care to inspect and maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of known hazards not reasonably obvious. Licensees are owed a duty to warn of known dangers. Trespassers are owed only a duty to refrain from willful and wanton misconduct.

Michigan imposes a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims under MCL § 600.5805(2). Claims against Michigan governmental agencies are subject to the governmental immunity provisions of the Michigan Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL § 691.1401 et seq. Government agencies enjoy broad immunity from tort claims, with liability waived only for highway defects, public building defects, negligent operation of government vehicles, and a few other enumerated exceptions. Claims for injuries on public sidewalks or in public buildings must comply with the highway exception provisions, with a 120-day advance notice of intent required before suit.

Michigan applies a comparative fault system under MCL § 600.2959. A plaintiff whose fault exceeds 50% of the total fault cannot recover noneconomic damages, and economic damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. Plaintiffs at 50% or less may recover damages reduced by their proportionate fault. Michigan abolished joint and several liability in 1995; each defendant is responsible only for their own proportionate share of damages. Fault is allocated among all parties, including non-parties, on the verdict form, meaning that a phantom defendant can absorb a substantial share of fault and reduce the plaintiff's net recovery.

Michigan's open and obvious doctrine is frequently dispositive in slip-and-fall cases, particularly those involving ice and snow. Under Lugo v. Ameritech Corp. (2001) and its progeny, naturally accumulated ice and snow that is visible to an average person using reasonable care is open and obvious, negating the property owner's duty. The special aspects exception applies when the hazard is effectively unavoidable—such as the only exit from a building—or when the risk of harm is unreasonably high despite the hazard's visibility. Michigan courts require plaintiffs to plead and prove special aspects with specificity to overcome an open-and-obvious defense on summary judgment.

How this works nationally

For the overall process and updates, read the Slip and fall claims: care and next steps overview. This page covers the local information available for Michigan.

What happens when I check?

You answer a few short questions about what happened. If you send them, your answers are kept on file. If a participating law firm takes these cases, it may contact you. People's Justice is not a law firm.

Live in Michigan? Read what applies in your state.

Register your interest. If a participating law firm takes these cases, it may contact you.

Register your interest