Legal Opinion · Dissent

Grandberry-Lovette v. Garascia

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided January 2, 2014No. Docket No. 311668Published

1DissentO’Connell, J.

I respectfully dissent. The majority invents a novel duty that requires premises possessors to predict when and whether Michigan weather might cause decorative bricks to loosen. I am unconvinced that Michigan law requires any premises possessor to be meteorologically clairvoyant about masonry. In my view, the majority opinion creates a new doctrine of anticipatory notice, which has never been recognized in Michigan. I decline to apply this new doctrine. Instead, I accept the trial court’s application of the well-recognized doctrine of constructive notice, and I would affirm the grant of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Clark v. Kmart Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Altairi v. AlhajMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API