Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc., 781 N.W.2d 806 (Mich. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc., 781 N.W.2d 806 (Mich. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2019–2024 · 3 courts · …the overt acts of a premises owner on his or her premises. at p. 806 ✓
66 citation events (66 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ruth Barriger v. the Bon-Ton Department Stores Inc (michctapp, 2019-06-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Ruth Barriger v. the Bon-Ton Department Stores Inc (2×) also: Cited "see"
Mich. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
although an injured person may pursue a claim in ordinary negligence for the overt acts of a premises owner on his or her premises, the plaintiff in this case is alleging injury by a condition of the land, and as such, his claim sounds exclusively in premises liability.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) John Pugno v. Blue Harvest Farms LLC
Mich. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the plaintiff in this case is alleging injury by a condition of the land, and as such, his claim sounds exclusively in premises liability.
cited Cited as authority (rule) JOHN FAY and JANICE FAY v. WARREN HOSPITALITY SUITES, INC., a Michigan Corporation, et al.
E.D. Mich. · 2026 · confidence medium
Mich. Sept. 15, 2017) (citing Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc., 486 Mich. 913, 913-14 (2010)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thelisa Anthony v. Greektown Casino LLC
Mich. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
While an ordinary-negligence claim involves “the overt acts of a premises owner on his or her premises,” a premises-liability claim concerns “injury by a condition of the land.” Kachudas v Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc, 486 Mich 913, 914 (2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ronald Byzewski v. Shelby Woods North Condominiums Association
Mich. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
An ordinary-negligence claim concerns “the overt acts of a premises owner on his or her premises,” while a premises-liability claim concerns “a condition of the land.” Kachudas v Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc, 486 Mich 913, 914 (2010).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Haley Weaver v. Flint Lodging Inc
Mich. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Kachudas v Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc, 486 Mich 913, 914 (2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCarver v. Target Corporation
E.D. Mich. · 2023 · confidence medium
Stated differently, an ordinary negligence claim, unlike a premises liability claim, requires “the overt acts of a premises owner on his or her premises.” Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc., 781 N.W.2d 806, 806 (Mich. 2010) (citing Laier v. Kitchen, 702 N.W.2d 199, 209 (Mich. 2005)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ramadan v. Home Depot, Inc. (2×)
E.D. Mich. · 2020 · confidence medium
Home Depot mainly relies on Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc., to defend its position. 781 N.W.2d 806, 913 (Mich. 2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frank Anthony Scola v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank National Association
Mich. · 2020 · confidence medium
It is true that, in this context, ordinary negligence claims concern “the overt acts of a premises owner on his or her premises,” whereas an allegation of “injury by a condition of the land . . . sounds exclusively in premises liability.” Kachudas v Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc, 486 Mich 913, 914 (2010).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lemons v. Home Depot USA, Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 2020 · confidence medium
Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc., 486 Mich. 913, 914 (2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nicole Eaton v. Frontier Communications Ilec Holdings Inc
Mich. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Kachudas v Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc, 486 Mich 913, 914 (2010); see also Adams v Adams, 276 Mich App 704, 710-711 ; 742 NW2d 399 (2007) (“It is well settled that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cote v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 2012 · confidence medium
Defendant is correct that under Michigan law if a plaintiff alleges that his injury was caused only “by a condition of the land ... his claim sounds exclusively in premises liability.” Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc., 486 Mich. 913 , 781 N.W.2d 806, 806 (2010).
discussed Cited "see" Saad v. Menards, Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
Mich. Sept. 15, 2017) (citing Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc., 486 Mich. 913 , 913–14 (2010)); see Nathan, Tr. of Est. of Charles v. David Leader Mgmt., Inc., 342 Mich. App. 507 , 512 (2022) (“[A]n ordinary- negligence claim may be brought ‘for the overt acts of a premises owner on his or her premises . . . .’” (quoting Kachudas, 486 Mich. at 914 )).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." O'Kulich v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak
E.D. Mich. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
When the claim is based on a condition of the premises, “liability arises solely from the defendant’s duty as an owner, possessor, or occupier of land.” Id.; see also Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc., 486 Mich. 913, 914 , 781 N.W.2d 1 Because the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is diversity, the Court must apply the substantive law of Michigan as interpreted by the Michigan Supreme Court.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Heather Grace Giammarco v. Diverse Facility Solutions Inc
Mich. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
Because plaintiff’s injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, his action “sounds in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence; this is true even when the plaintiff alleges that the premises possessor created the condition giving rise to the plaintiff’s injury.” Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs, 296 Mich App 685, 692 ; 822 NW2d 254 (2012); see also Kachudas v -5- Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc, 486 Mich 913 ; 781 NW2d 806 (2010). [Finazzo, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 3.] Similar to the plaintiff in Finazzo, plaintiff in this case has alleged that …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Heather Grace Giammarco v. Diverse Facility Solutions Inc
Mich. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
Because plaintiff’s injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, his action “sounds in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence; this is true even when the plaintiff alleges that the premises possessor created the condition giving rise to the plaintiff’s injury.” Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs, 296 Mich App 685, 692 ; 822 NW2d 254 (2012); see also Kachudas v -5- Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc, 486 Mich 913 ; 781 NW2d 806 (2010). [Finazzo, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 3.] Similar to the plaintiff in Finazzo, plaintiff in this case has alleged that …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." David Finazzo v. Fire Equipment Company
Mich. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
Because plaintiff’s injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, his action “sounds in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence; this is true even when the plaintiff alleges that the premises possessor created the condition giving rise to the plaintiff’s injury.” Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs, 296 Mich App 685, 692 ; 822 NW2d 254 (2012); see also Kachudas v Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc, 486 Mich 913 ; 781 NW2d 806 (2010).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." David Finazzo v. Fire Equipment Company (2×)
Mich. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
Because plaintiff's injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, his action "sounds in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence; this is true even when the plaintiff alleges that the premises possessor created the condition giving rise to the plaintiff's injury." Buhalis v. Trinity Continuing Care Servs. , 296 Mich. App. 685 , 692, 822 N.W.2d 254 (2012) ; see also Kachudas v. Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc. , 486 Mich. 913 , 781 N.W.2d 806 (2010).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Exziner Lloyd v. Tsfr Apple Venture LLC
Mich. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
We note that the trial court properly deemed this a premises liability action rather than a negligence action, because plaintiff’s “injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land.” Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Services, 296 Mich App 685, 692 ; 822 NW2d 254 (2012); see also Kachudas v Invaders Self Auto Wash Inc, 486 Mich 913, 914 ; 781 NW2d 806 (2010). -1- A plaintiff in a premises liability action has the burden to prove “‘(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Exziner Lloyd v. Tsfr Apple Venture LLC
Mich. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
We note that the trial court properly deemed this a premises liability action rather than a negligence action, because plaintiff’s “injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land.” Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Services, 296 Mich App 685, 692 ; 822 NW2d 254 (2012); see also Kachudas v Invaders Self Auto Wash Inc, 486 Mich 913, 914 ; 781 NW2d 806 (2010). -1- A plaintiff in a premises liability action has the burden to prove “‘(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Peggy Freeman v. Kmart Corporation
Mich. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Jahnke v Allen, 308 Mich App 472, 474-476 ; 865 NW2d 49 (2014) (stating the applicable rules and distinguishing between ordinary negligence and premises liability claims); see also Kachudas v Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc, 486 Mich 913, 914 (2010); James v Alberts, 464 Mich 12, 18-19 ; 626 NW2d 158 (2001). -9-
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cathleen Marie Cruchon v. Baro Mini Storage
Mich. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
In any case, “[w]hen an injury develops from a condition of the land, rather than emanating from an activity or conduct that created the condition on the property, the action sounds in premises liability.” Woodman v Kera, LLC, 280 Mich App 125, 153 ; 760 NW2d 641 (2008), citing James v Alberts, 464 Mich 12, 18-19 ; 626 NW2d 158 (2001); see also Kachudas v Invaders Self Auto Wash, Inc, 486 Mich 913, 913-914 ; 781 NW2d 806 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paul KACHUDAS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
INVADERS SELF AUTO WASH, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
139794.
Michigan Supreme Court.
May 21, 2010.
781 N.W.2d 806
2010 Mich. LEXIS 916
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 76%
Citer courts: Michigan Court of Appeals (2)

Order

On April 15, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the September 1, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered. MCR 7.302(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the Genesee Circuit Court's September 6, 2007 order granting summary disposition to the defendant. The Court of Appeals erred by reversing the circuit court's ruling on the basis that the plaintiff's claim sounded in ordinary negligence. The plaintiff, who was allegedly injured by slipping on the icy surface of the defendant's premises, claimed that he was injured by a condition of the land, and as such, the claim was one for premises liability, as the circuit court correctly recognized. James v. Alberts, 464 Mich. 12, 18-19, 626 N.W.2d 158 (2001). Although an injured person may pursue a claim in ordinary negligence for the overt acts of a premises owner on his or her premises, Laier v. Kitchen, 266 Mich.App. 482, 702 N.W.2d 199 (2005), the plaintiff in this case is alleging injury by a condition of the land, and as such, his claim sounds exclusively in premises liability. In addition, the circuit court properly ruled that the alleged hazardous condition was open and obvious, because a reasonably prudent average user of ordinary intelligence spraying water outdoors in a temperature range of 11 to 24 degrees would anticipate the likelihood of freezing and the resulting danger therefrom. Mann v. Shusteric Enterprises, Inc., 470 Mich. 320, 330, 683 N.W.2d 573 (2004); Slaughter v. Blarney Castle Oil Co., 281 Mich.App. 474, 478-479, 760 N.W.2d 287 (2008).

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting).

I would affirm the Court of Appeals result. I agree with the order's conclusion that plaintiff's claim sounds in premises liability, and the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the circuit court's ruling on the basis that it sounds in ordinary negligence. See James v. Alberts, 464 Mich. 12, 18-19, 626 N.W.2d 158 (2001), and Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc., 449 Mich. 606, 609-611, 537 N.W.2d 185 (1995). I would nonetheless affirm the Court of Appeals result because, on the facts of this case, summary disposition was improper. Plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the open and obvious doctrine, and the issue should be submitted to a jury. See, generally, Bertrand, 449 Mich. at 617-618, 537 N.W.2d 185.

MARILYN J. KELLY, C.J., joins the statement of MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J.

[*807] HATHAWAY, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the order of this Court which reverses the Court of Appeals and reinstates the Genesee County Circuit Court's order granting summary disposition to the defendant. I believe the trial court's grant of summary disposition was in error and that the Court of Appeals properly reversed that decision. Accordingly, I would affirm the Court of Appeals.