Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 1995No. Docket Nos. 96603, 98108, (Calendar Nos. 1-2)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWeaver, J.

I concur with the result in Maurer v Oakland Co. However, in Bertrand v Alan Ford, I do not agree that there was a genuine issue of material fact for the jury or that summary disposition was inappropriate. Cases finding that the risk of harm is unreasonable despite its obviousness or despite the invitee’s awareness of the condition are rare and typically involve hazardous natural conditions such as accumulations of snow and ice or excessive mud.* The risk to the invitee in such conditions has been held to be somehow more unavoidable than other conditions, thereby creat*626ing an exception to the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Quinlivan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Perry v. Hazel Park Harness RacewayMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Zielinski v. SzokolaMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. Clink v. SteinerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Lundy v. GrotyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API