What Now? The Fall Of The 'Open And Obvious' Doctrine

On July 28, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned its long-standing rule that property owners have no duty to protect against open-and-obvious dangers. For the past 20-plusyears, the "open and obvious" doctrine was a go-to defense for premises-liability defendants because it effectively eliminated a premises owner's duty to protect against conditions that were visible upon casual inspection or otherwise objectively known to a reasonably prudent person. Historically, premises owners owed no duty to protect against or warn of open-and-obvious conditions because such conditions, by their nature, provide individuals with notice of, and an opportunity to avoid, potential risks. Now, the "open and obvious" doctrine is relevant only to whether the premises owner breached a duty of care and to the issue of the plaintiff's comparative fault.