Legal Opinion · Dissent

Novotney v. Burger King Corp.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided March 1, 1993No. Docket 159563Published

1DissentMurphy, J.

I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants.

The facts in this case were set forth in this Court’s prior published opinion. Novotney v Burger King Corp (On Rehearing), 188 Mich App 705, 706-707; 470 NW2d 93 (1991).

I acknowledge that Riddle v McLouth Steel Products Corp, 440 Mich 85; 485 NW2d 676 (1992), stands for the proposition that an owner of land has no duty to warn an invitee of an open and obvious danger unless the owner has anticipated the harm will result despite the invitee’s knowledge of the danger. Unlike the majority, I am not persuaded…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Riddle v. McLouth Steel Products Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational IndustriesMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Novotney v. Burger King Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API