866-758-0031

Facebook

Instagram

Free Consultation
logo
Free Consultation
mobile logo
24 January
0 Comments
Sticky

Ottman v Great Lakes Gaming: Court of Appeals Denies Plaintiff Jury Trial

Posted by lmurphy
in Injuries

As a result of a recent unpublished decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals, Ottman v Great Lakes Gaming of Michigan (unpublished opinion issued December 11, 2012), plaintiff Leetta Ottman will not have an opportunity to present her case to a jury of her peers. In Ottman, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, which stemmed from a slip and fall accident in a parking lot of a casino.  The plaintiff slipped and fell on a sidewalk covered with “black ice.”  Black ice, sometimes called clear ice, refers to a coating of ice that is virtually invisible to the eye.  In other...

Continue reading
20 December
0 Comments
Sticky

Hamade v Garza: Court of Appeals Upholds Dog Bite Victim’s Case Against Landlord

Posted by lmurphy
in Injuries

The Michigan Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Hamade v Garzarepresents a positive development for Michigan plaintiffs who are victims of dog attacks. In fact, the case could benefit plaintiffs outside the context of dog bites. Hamade deals with a landlord’s liability when a tenant’s dog attacks and injures an individual. In Michigan, both statute and common law govern the liability of an owner of a dog. However, any action against a landlord who is not the owner of the dog is governed by the common law standard of reasonable care, which requires an individual to act in a way so...

Continue reading
20 August
0 Comments
Sticky

Supreme Court Ruling Further Limits “Special Aspects” Exception

Posted by lmurphy
in Injuries
Supreme Court Columns

A recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court may have a negative impact on the ability of Michigan’s citizens to recover for injuries sustained in slip and fall accidents. In the case of Hoffner v Lanctoe, the Michigan Supreme Court held that ice leading up to the only entrance of a fitness center was avoidable because the plaintiff was not “absolutely compelled” to confront it, and therefore Michigan’s open and obvious doctrine prevented the plaintiff from recovering for her injuries. The Hoffner decision could have a significant impact on the rights of individuals in Michigan and may mean increased danger to...

Continue reading