Where to File in Michigan
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 applies the open and obvious doctrine as an exception to the invitee duty: if a dangerous condition is open and obvious to a reasonable person, the property owner owes no duty to warn or repair it, though an exception exists for special aspects that make the condition unreasonably dangerous despite its obviousness.
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 modified comparative fault system under MCL § 600.2959, using the 51% bar rule. A plaintiff whose fault exceeds 50% of the total fault is barred from recovery. 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.