On February 23, 2017, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a peremptory reversal of the trial court’s order denying the grocery store defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff was shopping at the grocery store when she slipped on an unknown liquid and fell, sustaining injuries. She brought premises liability, public nuisance, and private nuisance claims against the store.
Defendant, represented by Collins Einhorn Farrell PC attorneys Kenneth C. Merritt and Christopher R. Schaedig, argued that the liquid that caused Plaintiff’s fall constituted an open and obvious hazard and that Plaintiff had failed to properly plead the elements of either of her nuisance claims. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for summary disposition, and Defendant filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
In its application for leave to appeal, written by Collins Einhorn Farrell PC attorney Jonathan B. Koch, Defendant argued again that the liquid was open and obvious and that Plaintiff had failed to properly plead her nuisance claims—a subject the trial court did not address at the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Rather than hearing oral argument, a panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals peremptorily reversed the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Further, the Court held that Defendant was entitled to summary disposition and so dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant, concluding that Defendant had been entitled to summary disposition in the trial court as a matter of law.
Peremptory reversal from the Michigan Court of Appeals is rare, and it indicates both a significant error at the trial-court level and a persuasive argument on the appellant’s part. Despite the infrequency with which the Court grants this relief, however, this case marks the fourth time in the last 11 months that Collins Einhorn Farrell has obtained peremptory reversal.