general negligence claim in Michigan

2017The Court further noted that the defendant’s creation of the condition did not transform a premises liability claim into a general negligence claim, stating “a plaintiff cannot avoid the open and obvious danger doctrine by claiming ordinary negligence, when the facts only support a premises liability claim . . . .” Id. -4- II.

2017Here, plaintiff pleaded the elements necessary to establish an ordinary negligence claim. 6 Plaintiff alleged that defendant owed Niehaus “a duty to use reasonable care and to not injure him.” See Jahnk v Allen, 308 Mich App 472, 475 ; 865 NW2d 49 (2014) (“[T]he duty owed in a general negligence claim is that every person who engages in the performance of an undertaking has an obligation to use due care or to act so as not to unreasonably endanger the person or property of another.) (Quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.” Laier, 266 Mich App at 495 ; (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he duty owed in a general negligence claim is that ‘every person who engages in the performance of an undertaking has an obligation to use due care or to act so as not to unreasonably endanger the person or property of another.’ ” Jahnke v Allen, 308 Mich App 472, 475 ; 865 NW2d 49 (2014) quoting Schenk v Mercury Marine Div, Lowe

2016“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.” Laier, 266 Mich App at 495 ; (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he duty owed in a general negligence claim is that ‘every person who engages in the performance of an undertaking has an obligation to use due care or to act so as not to unreasonably endanger the person or property of another.’ ” Jahnke v Allen, 308 Mich App 472, 475 ; 865 NW2d 49 (2014) quoting Schenk v Mercury Marine Div, Lowe

1982Gutowski, supra, pp 507-508 , quoting from Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed), p 145.” 405 Mich 89 -90.

1979Gutowski, supra, pp 507-508 , quoting from Prosser, Law of Torts, (4th ed), p 145.

2025See id.; Riddle v McLouth Steel Prods Corp, 440 Mich 85, 95 ; 485 NW2d 676 (1992) (recognizing “the basic rule of the common law, which imposes on every person engaged in the prosecution of any undertaking an obligation to use due care, or to so govern his actions as not to unreasonably endanger the person or property of others”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025See id.; Riddle v McLouth Steel Prods Corp, 440 Mich 85, 95 ; 485 NW2d 676 (1992) (recognizing “the basic rule of the common law, which imposes on every person engaged in the prosecution of any undertaking an obligation to use due care, or to so govern his actions as not to unreasonably endanger the person or property of others”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019Id. 1 The merits of the plaintiff’s general negligence claim are not before this Court. -1- Summary disposition is appropriate . . . if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2019A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ. [Id. at 116 (quotation marks and citation omitted).] MCL 554.139(1) provides, in relevant part: “In every lease . . . of residential premises, the lessor . . . covenants: (a) That the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the parties.” “MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees . . . of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.” Allison v AEW

2019A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ. [Id. at 116 (quotation marks and citation omitted).] MCL 554.139(1) provides, in relevant part: “In every lease . . . of residential premises, the lessor . . . covenants: (a) That the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the parties.” “MCL 554.139 provides a specific protection to lessees . . . of residential property in addition to any protection provided by the common law.” Allison v AEW

2019As our Supreme Court pointed out in Cox v Flint Bd of Hosp Managers, 467 Mich 1 ; 19; 651 NW2d 356 (2002), nurses “do not engage in the practice of medicine.” Id. at 19 .

2019As our Supreme Court pointed out in Cox v Flint Bd of Hosp Managers, 467 Mich 1 ; 19; 651 NW2d 356 (2002), nurses “do not engage in the practice of medicine.” Id. at 19 .

2016“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.” Laier, 266 Mich App at 495 ; (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he duty owed in a general negligence claim is that ‘every person who engages in the performance of an undertaking has an obligation to use due care or to act so as not to unreasonably endanger the person or property of another.’ ” Jahnke v Allen, 308 Mich App 472, 475 ; 865 NW2d 49 (2014) quoting Schenk v Mercury Marine Div, Lowe

2016In 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).

2016In 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).

2016In 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).

2016In 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).

2014Additionally, alleging that defendant created the condition “does not transform the claim into one for ordinary negligence.” Buhalis, 296 Mich App at 692 .

1987Finally, a special two-year limit has been worked out for malpractice suits [MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4)]. [Coats v Uhlmann, 87 Mich App 385, 388-389 ; 274 NW2d 792 (1978).] In Barnard v Dilley, 134 Mich App 375 ; 350 NW2d 887 (1984), the plaintiff sued the defendant, her attorney, claiming that his failure to properly represent her constituted a basis for a breach of contract claim as well as a general negligence claim.

1987Finally, a special two-year limit has been worked out for malpractice suits [MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4)]. [Coats v Uhlmann, 87 Mich App 385, 388-389 ; 274 NW2d 792 (1978).] In Barnard v Dilley, 134 Mich App 375 ; 350 NW2d 887 (1984), the plaintiff sued the defendant, her attorney, claiming that his failure to properly represent her constituted a basis for a breach of contract claim as well as a general negligence claim.

1987Finally, a special two-year limit has been worked out for malpractice suits [MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4)]. [Coats v Uhlmann, 87 Mich App 385, 388-389 ; 274 NW2d 792 (1978).] In Barnard v Dilley, 134 Mich App 375 ; 350 NW2d 887 (1984), the plaintiff sued the defendant, her attorney, claiming that his failure to properly represent her constituted a basis for a breach of contract claim as well as a general negligence claim.

1987Finally, a special two-year limit has been worked out for malpractice suits [MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4)]. [Coats v Uhlmann, 87 Mich App 385, 388-389 ; 274 NW2d 792 (1978).] In Barnard v Dilley, 134 Mich App 375 ; 350 NW2d 887 (1984), the plaintiff sued the defendant, her attorney, claiming that his failure to properly represent her constituted a basis for a breach of contract claim as well as a general negligence claim.