Legal Opinion · Dissent

Corbett v. Heck

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided December 30, 1969No. Docket 2,991Published

1DissentLevin, P. J.

As she walked out of the front door of the defendant’s tavern, Maxine Corbett, the plaintiff, caught her heel in an opening in a doormat, fell and broke a leg. The trial judge and the majority hold as a matter of law that the defendant was not negligent in using the particular doormat upon which she tripped. The trial judge stated that the mat “is an ordinary mat and is in common usage in this section of the country.”

The doormat is, indeed, commonly seen. The rubber links that comprise the mat are of identical size, several inches long. They are laid out in rows from left to right. Each row…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
  2. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. BehymerSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  3. Scott v. LiebmanTexas Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Clark v. DalmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Blumberg v. M. & T. IncorporatedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949

24 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