How To Prove A Michigan Premises Liability – Licensee Claim
In Michigan, a claim of Premises Liability – Licensee is defined as:
Premises liability occurs when a property owner fails to keep his or her property safe for lawful visitors, resulting in injury to a visitor. A licensee enters the land of another by the possessor’s consent. He or she is not there to conduct business. See also Slip and Fall.
It simply means:
A person is injured on another’s property due to the owner’s negligence.
There are 6 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The plaintiff was a licensee or visitor on the defendant’s property. In a premises liability case, the plaintiff must show they were allowed to be on the defendant’s property, either as a guest or visitor, which means they had permission to be there, even if it was not for a business purpose.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff entered the defendant’s property with the defendant’s permission to attend a social gathering.
* The plaintiff was invited by the defendant to participate in a community event held on the defendant’s premises.
* The plaintiff was a guest of a friend who was a resident on the defendant’s property at the time of the incident.
* The plaintiff had no business purpose for being on the property and was there solely for recreational purposes.
* The defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s presence on the property and did not take any action to restrict access. - Element 2. The defendant knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on the premises. The defendant was aware, or should have been aware, of a hazardous situation on their property that could harm visitors, and they failed to address it, making them potentially responsible for any injuries that occurred as a result.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant received multiple complaints from patrons about a loose floor tile in the entryway prior to the incident.
* The defendant had previously been warned by maintenance staff about the deteriorating condition of the outdoor steps leading to the entrance.
* The defendant’s employees had observed the hazardous condition but failed to take any corrective action before the incident occurred.
* The defendant had a regular inspection schedule but neglected to address known safety issues during the last two inspections.
* The defendant was aware that similar incidents had occurred in the past due to the same dangerous condition on the premises. - Element 3. The licensee did not know or have reason to know of the dangerous condition. This means that the person using someone else’s property (the licensee) was not aware of any dangerous situation and had no reason to suspect it was there, so they shouldn’t be held responsible for any accidents that happen because of that danger.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The licensee had no prior incidents or complaints regarding the condition of the premises before the incident occurred.
* The licensee conducted regular inspections of the property and found no evidence of the dangerous condition.
* The licensee was not informed by any guests or employees about the existence of the dangerous condition prior to the incident.
* The licensee had no reason to suspect that the condition was hazardous based on the normal use and maintenance of the premises.
* The licensee had recently made repairs to the area in question, which were believed to have resolved any potential hazards. - Element 4. The defendant failed to warn the plaintiff of hidden dangers. In a premises liability case, if the property owner knew about hidden dangers on their property but didn’t inform the visitor, they may be held responsible for any injuries the visitor suffers as a result of those dangers.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant was aware of a significant hazard on the property but did not inform the plaintiff, who was a licensee.
* The area where the plaintiff was injured had previously been reported as unsafe, yet the defendant took no action to warn visitors.
* The defendant had received multiple complaints about the hidden danger prior to the plaintiff’s incident but failed to address them.
* The defendant did not provide any signage or warnings about the concealed risk, despite knowing that licensees frequently accessed the area.
* The plaintiff was not familiar with the property and relied on the defendant to disclose any potential dangers present. - Element 5. The defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury. The defendant’s failure to keep the property safe directly led to the injury suffered by the plaintiff, meaning that the harm was a direct result of the defendant’s negligence in maintaining the premises.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant failed to repair a broken step on the property, which was known to them for several weeks prior to the incident.
* The plaintiff tripped and fell on the uneven surface of the broken step while visiting the defendant’s property.
* Witnesses observed the plaintiff struggling to maintain balance due to the hazardous condition of the step.
* The defendant had received prior complaints about the broken step from other visitors but did not take any action to address the issue.
* The injuries sustained by the plaintiff were directly related to the fall caused by the defendant’s negligence in maintaining safe premises. - Element 6. The plaintiff suffered damages. The plaintiff experienced harm or loss, such as physical injury or financial costs, as a result of an unsafe condition on someone else’s property, which is a key part of proving their case in a premises liability claim for a licensee.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff slipped on a wet floor in the defendant’s store, resulting in a fractured wrist that required medical treatment.
* The plaintiff experienced significant pain and suffering due to the injuries sustained from the fall on the defendant’s property.
* The plaintiff incurred medical expenses totaling over $5,000 as a direct result of the incident on the premises.
* The plaintiff was unable to work for three weeks following the accident, leading to lost wages and financial hardship.
* The plaintiff’s injuries have resulted in ongoing physical therapy, further contributing to their overall damages.
(See Kosmalski v. St. John’s Lutheran Church, 680 NW 2d 50 – Mich: Court of Appeals 2004. Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, INC., 890 NW 2d 344 – Mich: Supreme Court 2016. Riddle v. McLouth Steel Prod. Corp., 440 Mich. 85, 96, 485 N.W.2d 676 (1992). Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450, 460, 821 N.W.2d 88 (2012).)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a claim of Premises Liability – Licensee, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to navigate the complexities of your case effectively.
Prove Your MI Premises Liability – Licensee Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only